Wes Tender

West Ham now sold out, probably as a result of people taking up that match towards Wembley ticket requirements for members

My first thought was that he would have an OAP concessionary ticket and that they wouldn't allow it to be bought at the concessionary price and used for a younger adult. However, the rules do not mention a restriction specific to the upgrading of a OAP ticket. It could be though that when he goes to order his ticket, a non concessionary adult ticket would be queried and if one was bought, it might produce problems on the day.

YES!!!!!!

I assume that this little diatribe is aimed at me, judging by the points made. I really have to laugh at your assertion that my post was based on raw emotion and little intellectual understanding and then you dish up the response that you do, redolent of raw emotion and hardly a model of towering intellectuality. You obviously missed prominent leaders of either side stating categorically that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Gove and others all said it. So Boris said that we would have access to the single market. I think that you really do need to do some research here, as access to the single market is an entirely different matter to membership of it, and it appears to have confused you. As has been said recently in this debate, even North Korea can have access to the single market. I read the fullfact opinion also on whether the referendum decision was binding on the Government and argue that Cameron having stated in a message to every voter on the electoral register that the government would abide by the decision of the referendum vote, there was obviously a moral obligation that they put in hand the apparatus to commence our departure from the EU. As I said, if they refused to do so, there would riots in the streets. I see that you choose to ignore the bulk of the forecasts of doom and gloom that were churned out on a daily basis by many economists, financial organisations, the treasury, the Chancellor, business bodies, etc, of the immediate consequences of a vote to leave. Employment and house prices have not fallen, inward investment has not been curtailed, economic growth has continued. But I note that you are suffering because your imported beer is costing a few pennies more and maybe you are a Marmite consumer too, and if so, you have my sympathy. Your life must be unbearable. Why has the NHS not received any of the £350 million yet? Simple really. We haven't left the EU yet, so we are still paying it. The government didn't promise the referendum to appease its right wing. It did it to prevent the party losing seats to UKIP, much as Labour will in their traditional heartlands in 2020. Regarding the rest of your post, the raw emotion bit, the bile that you vent towards the Tory Party, then it must really grate on you that there is no credible opposition. If you are indeed a Labour voter, then which branch of the party do you support? The former Blairites, or the Corbynistas? The workers who want to leave the EU, or the Metropolitan elite who want to remain in?

I doubt that many if any on here would have heard of it, and taken your remarks as I did. But for whatever reason, you decided to drop it from your post anyway.

Decided to drop the snide flat Earth bit, I see.

Your post is all over the place. A referendum decision is the polar opposite to a dictatorship. Are you saying that people don't want their democratically elected government to act on their decision in a referendum? During the campaign, it was made abundantly clear that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the single market. The referendum was not advisory. The Prime Minister and the government had made it crystal clear that the decision of the electorate would be acted on. Had it been ignored, there would be riots in the streets. Was the decision to leave the EU a more important one than the decision to join? That is open to debate. All very well bleating about democracy when the electorate are given a choice now, but if you wish to be consistent, perhaps you will kindly agree that there really ought to have been referenda to endorse every subsequent treaty after the Treaty of Rome that compromised our national sovereignty. There isn't a likelihood that the standard of living will fall post Brexit. There is a possibility, but equally there is also a possibility that it will rise. Cameron and Osborne made their positions untenable through their shrill warnings of dire consequences. Osborne in particular was made to look a fool with his statement that a post Brexit vote would necessitate an emergency Budget shortly afterwards. None of the economists' forecasts of doom that would immediately follow a decision to leave the EU have come to pass, apart from the fall in the overvalued pound, which has brought some positive benefits to our exporters, inward investment and the tourist industry. The Royal Prerogative was deemed to be adequate when successive governments signed away our sovereignty in the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, and three Supreme Court Judges deemed it justifiable in the matter of us triggering Article 50. Do you not consider those actions to have been controversial? I'm pleased that you accept that Brexit is going to happen, but amused by your final parting shot implying that the government might not pursue the best possible outcome of the negotiations in the best interests of the country. Ironic really that the Labour Party which is supposed to represent the British worker, is split down the middle, the workers voting to leave the EU and the Champagne Socialist Metropolitan elite wishing to stay in. I gather from your remarks that you are a Labour voter, and if so, it must really irk you that half of the Party voted to leave the EU.

The Government obviously thought that their legal case was sound and certainly there were good arguments as to why the Royal Prerogative should have been acceptable, especially as it was used to allow previous Governments to sign up for loss of our sovereignty with EU treaties. But this is just a little hiccup and won't derail the triggering of Article 50 by the end of March. It would have been interesting to speculate on what the situation would have been had Cameron triggered it immediately following the referendum result, or even May immediately following her election as PM, which I believe preceded this legal challenge. But the time taken to make arrangements to employ the specialist advisers and negotiators needed following Article 50 was a good thing. Naturally we will pursue the best deal that we can. But insinuating that nobody voting to leave the EU had any idea of all of the ramifications entailed is absolute rubbish. The negative ramifications were churned out daily ad nauseum by project fear and the positives were laid out by the leave campaign. Or are you suggesting that anybody who voted to leave must have been too thick to understand what the consequences were either way and incapable of making an informed decision on them?

When making comparisons between the potential trade with the USA and that which we do with the EU, anybody with any common sense would accept that the trade we will do with the EU post Brexit, will not cease. It therefore becomes the case that the new trade deals that we organise with the USA and other major trading nations around the World, will merely have to replace any trade we lose with the EU, and if it exceeds it, we will be ahead of the game, will we not? Our Brexit weakens the EU, but our ability to trade freely with whomever we want to strengthens us. So the EU is f***ed, whether by other member states following us out of the door, or when the Euro collapses.

Of course, the matter is a complicated one and not clear cut, as otherwise the decision of the Supreme Court would have been unanimous. This article from a Constitutional specialist discusses the legal implications and concludes that the Article 50 decision should be taken by Royal Prerogative, i.e. by the Government, because https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/08/thomas-fairclough-article-50-and-the-royal-prerogative/ But whatever the decision, it won't derail Brexit, as all the government needs to do, is circumvent the legal apparatus by bringing a bill before Parliament calling for the triggering of Article 50 and that will be supported by a fairly substantial majority. Despite Minor Fart's Lib Dumbs and Wee Krankie's SNP opposition, there won't be many Labour MPs voting against it, as they aren't up for political oblivion in a General Election. The House of Lords will also take the decision to support it, or there will be massive electoral support for measures to be taken to seriously curtail their powers, or even to abolish the House of Lords.

We are a much more potent team when we have Bertrand and Cedric playing, particularly when we also have Tadic and Redmond ahead of them. The two of them give us width and pace out wide, but both are adept at tracking back quickly to defend. So Leicester were poor, but as always the question arises as to how poor we made them look? The other factor that produced the convincing win, was how the man of the match poll distributed the votes to several players, highlighting a great team performance with no particular weaknesses. In defence, Fonte would have normally have been first choice over Yoshida, but Yoshida has improved his game significantly since Fonte has been left out and against pacey players like Vardy, it is arguable that Fonte is slower, whereas Yoshida is seldom beaten for pace. Even when our defensive linchpin V V-D went off injured, Stephens was comfortable with the other three around him. The midfield was also solid with Romeu the rock and J W-P and Hojbjerg both playing well, intercepting and passing efficiently to link the midfield and final third. Up front Rodriguez is growing in confidence and ability match by match and Redmond and Tadic are both tricky players to deal with around or in the box. Tactically Puel once more did a good job, firming up the midfield bite with Clasie and the pace of Long against tiring Leicester legs. Psychologically, we have a good boost ahead of the Liverpool match, whereas they have received a confidence knock following their loss against Swansea. We also know that if we score at Anfield, they have to score three times to beat us. If we field a similar team and play with the same commitment we can beat them, but it would help if V V-D was fit to play.

Project Fear did its best to make the leavers have doubts about leaving, but the remainiacs were definitely full of certainty that leaving would be a disaster.

Will we? Teams like them who like a passing and movement game suit us far better than teams like Norwich who park the bus. We can close down their players, deny them space to pass, but that doesn't mean that we need to allow them to dominate possession and the space to dictate the game.

Martina was awful. If Koeman still wants him, I would drive him up to Everton myself. He made some overlaps rarely and when he then received the ball, his first thought was more often than not to pass it backwards or sideways. He takes too long to decide what to do and when he has made his decision, the moment has gone and the space for the pass is closed down. I don't remember him dropping his shoulder and running forwards with the ball and then putting over a decent cross. He ought to watch some videos of Cedric, Bertrand or Clyne last season to see what is required from him.

Like JB, I accept that there have been strong benefits from immigration. What bothered me and no doubt most of those who voted to leave the EU, was not immigration per se, but their concerns about uncontrolled immigration from the EU. I'm all for allowing immigration for those who are needed in sectors of our economy where we have labour or skill shortages, but that decision should be down to our elected government, not the EU. The imposition of freedom of movement of peoples imposed on us as a condition of single market membership was fine when the EU project comprised a much smaller number of member states with similar economies, but as with the Euro, the mass expansion of member states with poorer economies was always going to destabilise the Euro and cause immigration problems. As control of immigration was as you say one of the dominant reasons for the leave vote and is not up for negotiation with the EU, they have forced us to decide that we have to leave the single market. The collapse of the Euro isn't far away either.

As it seems that we are legally permitted to enter into trade discussions with the rest of the World before we leave the EU, I believe that the meaning of the two fingers vertical is understood internationally.

A really dire, dour match in freezing conditions. Norwich were truly awful, but we didn't deign to put them under the sort of pressure that would have made them crack. Too much sidewards and backwards passing as usual, one of the worst candidates being Martina, whose first thought whenever he gets the ball is to ignore the potential to run it past players or take it up the wing. I suppose that having such a weak defence on paper with only Yoshida as first choice option in the absence of Fonte, we should be grateful that Norwich didn't manage to force a single save from our rookie goalkeeper. The midfield just about did OK, but there was no threat in the final third and to at least have the option of that, we needed the likes of Bertrand and Cedric out wide with pace. McQueen was solid on the left, but did not have the movement from Long or Rodriguez for much of the game. Just as it seemed that the match would go to extra time and penalties, Puel made the changes that tipped the balance finally and firmly in our favour, by bringing on Romeu and Redmond for Reed and Rodriguez. Romeu added more backbone to the midfield and Redmond added some quick feet and guile up front. The effect was almost an instant improvement as we moved the ball around with greater purpose and pace and there were real chances that began to be carved out. As we failed to convert them, it began to seem as if we wouldn't take advantage of our superiority, but for once, Lady Luck smiled on us right at the death in extra time, the perfect time to kill the match. McQueen's persistence and a great cross found Long, who had his initial shot parried out, but was able to bundle it over the line to break Norwich hearts. With the absence of key players and the need to have half an eye on the weekend match, we were forced to field really quite a weak team, but thankfully there was still enough on the bench to get us over the line.

Nothing wrong with my heart old chump, but I'm touched by your concern, unnecessary though it is. Neither am I in any sort of frenzy and my feet are firmly planted on the ground. Thanks for the link to the amusing blog. It wasn't yours by any chance? It has your tone of arrogant superiority about it. I'm pleased to see that you haven't bothered to argue the toss on the legal aspects of our ability to negotiate our own trade deals with the rest of the World pending our departure from the EU. I gather that in your own mind, your forte lies with economic matters rather than legal ones. We will have to wait and see how we fare with our trade negotiations during the two year Article 50 period, but I'm afraid that I won't be paying too much attention to the pessimistic views expressed in a blog by somebody I've never heard of. Timmy appears to be well on his way to having his forecasts of a Norwegian style deal being proved wrong and I look forward to seeing how wrong you will be regarding the trade deals in the next couple of years.

The Remoaners love to give the impression that we will not be permitted by EU rules to begin negotiations of trade deals with countries outside of the EU before we have completed the Article 50 process and actually left the EU. As you say, apart from the position you take that I would agree with, that we should go ahead anyway and what can they do about it, it appears that the legal position renders that approach unnecessary. According to the legal eagles, we have a perfect legal right to begin negotiations during the period following the triggering of Article 50, although those trade agreements cannot be signed until we have actually left. http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/int-trade-before-exit.shtml We should proceed to negotiate as many free trade deals as possible in preparation for our departure from the EU, every one sorted increasing our bargaining position with the EU and making us less reliant on our trade with them in the post-Brexit era. It will be immensely satisfying if we were to conclude trade deals with countries outside the EU at a far faster pace than the sclerotic EU bureaucracy has managed.

One third of the population growth - only!

I expected a response like this, as being found out for posting drivel with those pre-referendum quotes and being shot down in flames for it, your usual MO is to indulge in childish insults. I read your linked pages and found that the report admitted that the housing requirements of the recent mass immigration could not keep up with the demand. Of course, housing is also part of the infrastructure, but typically the report is happy to blame the government for not building enough houses, rather than the cause of the necessity.

Read my post more carefully please. I never claimed that EU migrants earned less that the UK national average. I said that although they might generally pay more into the kitty than they took out, there was no way that the taxes of the recent mass immigration wave covered the infrastructure needed to accommodate them.

Pay attention please. SG spoke of infrastructure, housing, schooling, health care, etc. No way do their taxes cover the infrastructure necessary to accommodate them. I'm sure that you're happy though that you can steer the conversation away from the debacle of your earlier faux pas where you were shot down in flames by him.

All very well you trying to justify your argument by quoting several people out of context in order to illustrate that the electorate didn't know what they were voting for, but I'm afraid that it doesn't wash. I'm particularly impressed by your bare-faced gall attempting to convince us that Farage would prefer us to negotiate a Norway/Switzerland type deal with what that would entail, rather than a clean break from the EU, negotiating the best deal for access to the single market, but prepared to adopt a fall-back position via the WTO if that fails. This question of whether the electorate were aware that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote to leave the single market was covered amply during the Referendum and clarified in the simplest terms by the major players on both sides of the campaign. I realise that it might not have penetrated your brain, but patently you would rather ignore the statements made by Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Gove, Leadsom, etc. that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. The position should have been crystal clear from their statements, but the ambiguity that muddied the waters came from the Eurocrats, who tried to assert that access to the single market would mean that we would have to accept their four freedoms. This is simply not true, as those are the terms of membership of the single market, not access. As has been cited recently in this debate, even North Korea can have access to the single market if it desired. I applaud May's speech today which leaves no doubt about how we will approach the negotiations once Article 50 has been triggered. She has taken a conciliatory tone in expressing a desire to maintain a friendly relationship with the EU and the hope that in our mutual interests they will not cut of their nose to spite their face. She did well too to leave them in no doubt that if they thought that they could adopt an attitude of making an example of us by punishing us to deter other member states from following us out of the door, we would be prepared to take steps with our tax regime to make the UK very attractive for inward investment. The likes of Junker, Merkel and the EU negotiators now have clarity about what we will and will not accept, so the ball is firmly in their court. We have two years from March to negotiate the best possible deal with the possibility that some seismic political changes affecting the Eurozone and other member states during that time will only strengthen our hand.

Agreed