Wes Tender

Classic monumentally arrogant and superior post from you, if I may so so. Your attitude towards Brexiteers appears to be very much in tune with Blair's, so here's a piece about his record on the EU. Feel free to praise his intervention into the debate and his crusade to overturn the will of the people. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tony-blair-doesnt-deserve-opinion-brexit-1607189

And our supposedly unbiased national broadcasting organisation is accused of peddling it too. Anybody who believes that they are unbiased must be really naive.

http://brexitcentral.com/no-surprise-blair-referendums-breaking-promises/ An interesting article on the arch-hypocrite Blair and some good reasons why his intervention into the Brexit debate at this stage has been met with howls of derision, even from his former cohorts, Blairites in the Labour Party. It's a shame he doesn't recognise that he is yesterday's man, spouting yesterday's platitudes. But I welcome his intervention for one reason alone; his arrogance in insinuating that those who voted to leave the EU didn't understand what the implications would be, is a gift to the Brexiteers, whose resolve to leave will have been hardened against the EU.

Changed it

Was listening to Radio 2 this morning when they played "We will Rock You" by Queen. Realised that as "We will, we will rock you" fitted Manola Gabbiadini, (but Mano Gabbiadini slightly better), it seems a good choice, especially as it is anthemic. Mano, you're the man, a really big noise Playing for the Saints, gonna be a big hit today, you got a smile on your face, you've got good pace, scoring your goals all over the place Mano Gabbiadini, Mano Gabbiadini. Opportunity for the wall bangers at the back to thump out the beat too.

Good riddance

So did he come across the Atlantic Ocean, or did he just fly over a 22 mile strip of it?

Nor Geographically correct either according to you. But still, now Caceres has signed, you can sing that he crossed an Ocean to be here instead.

What struck me about the article, is that whereas I had thought that Article 50 set out a procedure for a member state to leave, I had taken it that it comprised steps, as in Article 50 (1), (2), etc. It had not occurred to me that Article 50(1) was by itself a possibility without the period of up to two years in which to negotiate a settlement that is covered in (2), or in subsequent clauses. Do these credentials of legal expertise of treaties that the author possesses infer that she is indeed correct, that we could actually leave the EU by simply giving notice under Article 50 (1)? And does she therefore believe that the Government either doesn't realise that, or are intent on pursuing a route of negotiation against a background of threats of various punishments and financial retributions? If she is correct, then that is one hell of a bargaining position to adopt, effectively the nuclear option. The only fly in the ointment is that the Remoaners in the Commons and the Lords will prefer to go down the route of a two year post Article 50 negotiation with the EU in the hope of a "soft" Brexit, or even that there be some circumstance in the future that affords the possibility that a second referendum could be called.

I'm afraid that I still don't accept the premise that an organisation which is reliant for its existence or its funding on some other body, can be totally impartial towards that body. I'm not that naive as to ignore human nature and have developed a healthy cynicism over many years, but you believe it if you want. As I said already though, that particular article did not take a partisan stance, but in a fair and balanced way attempted to assess what we might have to pay the EU and what we should expect to deduct from it in return. I'll continue to assess each article based on content rather than its source, if that's OK with you, me old mucker, much as you usually do yourself.

Here is an interesting read proposing just that. It is argued that we do not need to trigger Article 50 (2) and that if we only went for Article 50 (1), then we would be out of the EU and able to negotiate whatever trading arrangements we wanted from a stronger negotiating position. We would not need to pay anything further into the EU slush fund and would be able to arrange our own trade deals with the rest of the World right away, not having to wait until we had left the EU under Article 50 (2) which might be two years later. http://moneyweek.com/dont-trigger-article-50-just-leave/

The article appeared on this morning's daily epistle from Brexit Central and as it argued that we had a solid counter-negotiating stance to that put out by the likes of Barnier, I have no particular reason to discount it. It isn't as if the debated material could be categorised as typical of that churned out pre-referendum forecasting doom and gloom and economic meltdown if we voted to leave the EU. I could equally have linked to the article in the Times, who published their own article on the Bruegel one and then commented on it. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brussels-told-to-share-150bn-assets-h6s96wtpv But speaking of the project fear prophecies that did not come to pass following the referendum vote, there was plenty of other good news out there today:- http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4228258/MARKET-REPORT-Eight-months-Brexit-FTSE-flying.html#ixzz4YpNHsxw6 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/15/employment-hits-record-high-uk-firms-keep-hiring/ http://www.cityam.com/259115/uk-investor-confidence-hits-highest-level-since-brexit-vote So, reasons to be cheerful, one, two, three

Whilst there is a short lull in the Brexit proceedings because of the Parliamentary recess, here is an interesting article discussing what we may need to cough up as a "divorce settlement" from the EU. Where there have been shrill estimates varying that it will be somewhere between 24.5 - 72.8 billion Euros, here is a more sober article suggesting that we have a strong claim towards EU assets which would offset some of the amount claimed by the more strident EU bureaucratic bigwigs. http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/

Definitely one of the best known Italian songs and scans well with his name, either Manolo or Gabbiadini. My effort:- He's Saints star and he'll shine, scoring goals all the time That's Manolo When he plays like a dream, the star of our team That's Manolo And he'll sing, I'm marching in and I'll be in that number Scusa me, I left old Napoli for the Saints now

Which was the ocean that he crossed to come here? Is he teeny-weeny? He's 6' 1" tall.

Of course, there is statistically a greater chance that Man Utd will suffer more injuries than us, playing three times as many matches between now and the final. They have home and away fixtures against St Etienne in the Europa League and an away fixture in the FA Cup, so not just as likely at all.

Skate alert!

Oh, by the way, excellent referee.

A majestic performance. Were we really good, or where Sunderland really poor? Or did we just make them look poor? Whichever way, it was still a good performance from us, especially after the first 20 minutes when maybe Sunderland might just have edged it. After that, we were winning the 50/50 balls in midfield, our passing and movement was good and with Gabbiadini up front, we carried not only a real threat, but some superb finishing. Once again, there were good performances throughout the team, Cedric and Bertrand good at giving us the width when they rampaged upfield, Forster not having much to do, because Yoshida and Stephens also were solid. In the midfield, Romeu in particular shone, but was ably assisted by Davis and Ward-Prowse. Tadic had one of his better games and provided some good service with Redmond for Gabbiadini. The number of shots on goal, tackles, possession stats must be pretty impressive. In the last quarter of the match, bringing on the pace of Long must have been a bit scary for Sunderland and he did prove to present a problem for them, bringing in an own goal to prevent him scoring and then as casual as you like, stroking in a great delivery to score himself. So, it was only Sunderland, but their heads were held high from their thrashing of Crystal Palace and the point against Spurs, whereas our confidence could have been weak after our recent run. But the noises coming from Puel and a couple of players pre-match indicated that there was a determination to turn things around and now psychologically having beaten a team 4-0 when they had last won their match 4-0 themselves, combined with a clean sheet too, gives us a massive confidence boost before the League Cup final. I was amused at the commentators saying how unlucky Sunderland were to have so many key players out injured, whereas of course there was not a dicky bird about the key players we were missing. I'm pleased that the players didn't seem to have had half an eye of the Cup Final avoiding tackles that could have put them out with injuries, but instead fought hard to make a case for their inclusion.

So far so good. Gabbiadini excellent and Tadic providing some good intelligent service.

Regardless, it's such a crap analogy, that you demean yourself by using it. Just in case you missed the excellent documentary on Brexit and the political upheaval in the EU, here is a link to it on i-player http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08dx4lz/this-world-after-brexit-the-battle-for-europe There's enough time to watch it before the match starts.

I'm really becoming concerned for your sanity after this latest little outburst from you. This ridiculous labelling of Brexit supporters as jihadists is just plain bizarre on every level. I would be interested in your explanation for it. I'm afraid that this sort of puerile, infantile name calling does your credibility as a serious poster no good at all.

Jihadi Les? You're excelling yourself today. Another childish bit of name-calling to add to your already extensive repertoire, more claims that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't have a clue and even some industrial language! Calm down, dear, don't get your knickers in a twist. It wasn't me who raised the possibility of the collapse of the EU before the two year Article 50 period was over; it was the reporter on the documentary. Perhaps you didn't see it, but it covered the growing unrest in Southern Europe and Greece because of the Euro crisis, the probable collapse of Italian Banks, the high youth unemployment, the rise of populist parties in Eastern Europe, particularly Hungary and also Holland, Italy and France because of the problems caused to them by mass immigration. I have little doubt that the Euro won't survive, as it is plainly the cause of much of the economic problems in Greece, Italy and Spain in particular. As you know, there are elections in many of the EU member states in the near future and the programme speculated on the potential outcomes. As JB says though, it would be no bad thing at all if the EU finally came to its senses, maintained the federal agenda only for any member state that wanted it and reverted back to the original Common Market for the others that didn't. Would the member states all of a sudden stop trading with each other or us and the rest of the World? If not, then why would there be a global crisis?