Wes Tender

Bercow has committed a constitutional outrage, by riding roughshod over the the Queens' consent. It will serve the obnoxious little tw*t right if protocol is broken and the Conservatives put a candidate against him at the next GE. Also, I trust that his chances of a seat in the HOL are toast too.

Bercow has overstepped the mark by some distance tonight. The egotistical little twerp is a hypocrite of the highest order, complaining of a constitutional outrage because Boris prorogued Parliament which was his right, when Bercow's action was the real constitutional outrage.

Come on, can't we debate like adults without hurling around the insults? Whitey Grandad will be disappointed at you all. Oh, sorry, he's only triggered whenever anybody calls remainers remoaners.

Timmy I challenged you to another £50 bet that this situation won't arise. I see that you have ignored it. Still smarting because the chances of your Norway deal are now extremely remote? Certainly your original prediction didn't factor in that May would spend nearly three years negotiating what became her Surrender Treaty and would then be gone. As I say, you're really not very good at this prediction game, so are you prepared to back it up, or not?

delete

Bracknell voted out, I believe. Lee has been a constant dissident on the Brexit issue. With luck, there will be a General Election very soon, so that the electorate of Bracknell will have the opportunity to give him the order of the boot.

You just don't get it, do you? You say that anybody calling those who wished to remain in the EU "Remoaners", cannot be expected to be treated like an adult. But you refuse to accept that by extension all those posters on the other side using insulting language should be treated in the same way too. Your powers of comprehension are getting a bit weak, I'm afraid. I am not asking you to speak for others. I am inviting you to state that others on the remain side are at least as guilty of puerile name-calling and that you condemn them too. Surely that isn't too much to ask. Or do you approve of it when it's from the remain side?

So you aren't going to be even-handed then? You confirm that you haven't been critical of any childish name-calling by the Remain side? Fair enough. One rule for Brexit posters, another for them. I am not about to take criticism for name-calling from you if you aren't capable of being consistent in criticising the other side of it too.

I assume that you are going to be even-handed and likewise condemn those who call Leavers/Brexiteers swivel-eyed loons and other such childish names? Thinking about it, I don't ever recall any such criticism from you. It's just a one-way street with you, isn't it?

I'll see your project fear Patrick Minford prediction on job losses from the minimum wage and raise you a project fear George Osborne, the Remoaners go-to Chancellor of the Exchequer's prediction on job losses just from voting to leave the EU.

The panic levels from the Remoaner establishment are being ramped up to hysteria levels. Today is the main chance for the Remoaners, their last chance saloon to try and derail Brexit. They don't just want to delay it, they want to stop it altogether. They will require Bercow to overstep his authority to allow an emergency motion to be amendable, arguably far more of a constitutional outrage than Boris deciding to prorogue Parliament, which was justifiable as normal procedure and well within the PM's authority. But of course, we won't be seeing rent-a-mob demonstrating against that. It is all very complicated, but if (when) Bercow decides to allow the emergency debate and permits it to be amendable, here is an article delving into the implications and options presented to the Government to counter it:- https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/

If you were a little bit brighter, you would have realised that the Norway option wasn't going to happen. But then you weren't that bright, were you? Now you have the arrogance as a Remoaner and a Lib Dumb to claim to know what Boris Johnson wants to happen over Brexit. As a Conservative and a Leaver, I believe that I am more in tune with him than you. Do you want a second chance to have me pay £50 to a Charity of your choice by accepting my bet that your scenario will not take place?

OOOH! Tetchy, Timmy. You don't appreciate being shown up by a myopic dullard who was more capable than you when it came to predicting that we would not go for the Norway deal, do you? Surely the essence of the bet was that the money be donated to a charity chosen by the winner? When you are resigned to your bet having been lost, kindly furnish me with a list of charities you resent and I'll choose one for you.

Oh, I don't know Nick. Timmy's level of understanding meant that he was adamant from the beginning that we would end up with a Norway style deal. He was even prepared to place a £50 bet (proceeds to charity) on it. That isn't looking very likely now, is it?

GM, surely you're overlooking the one big plus that Spreadsheet Phil has that will swing the vote his way - his dynamic personality, matinee idol good looks and magnetic charisma.

Hammond's seat was Remain, but the vote was as close to 50/50 as it could possibly be. I'm afraid that you just don't understand Conservative voters, especially those in the leafy Home ounty shires like Surrey. Apart from the referendum vote being split, so that many of the leave voters will desert him, he will no longer be the official Conservative candidate, so many traditional Conservative voters will also give him the order of the boot. The outcome also depends on whether The Brexit Party fields a candidate, and whether a proportion of the Remain vote switches to the Lib Dumbs. Labour are not likely to increase their vote there, so the Lib Dumbs or a proper pro-leave Conservative are the likely inroads against Spreadsheet Phil's support.

Of course, I didn't say that, did I? But in your typical MO, you take something said, twist it and then throw out an insult. The sort of stuff we Brexiteers are well used to from the Remoaners, who are frothing at the mouth in a crescendo of false rage as they realise that they are being backed into a corner, their options to thwart Brexit decreasing with every passing day. As GM says, Boris is playing a blinder. Let's see what unconstitutional shenanigans the Commons can come up with, aided and abetted by Bercow, partial towards the Remoaner last ditch pantomime to come tomorrow.

And you are the most conceited, arrogant, condescending and often juvenile of the undemocratic remoaners on here. And you've also got some competition, but frankly you're in a league of your own.

I don't disagree, so we're two of the more sensible ones. It isn't something we have done before, so anybody making statements about the potential repercussions and parading them as facts needs to be challenged. There will inevitably be some disruption.Those who talk in hysterical language about disasters, need to get a grip.

Yes that's exactly what I voted for and want, and have wanted since Maastricht. As for your opinion on the aftermath, it is verging on the hysterical, based on no particular evidence, just pure conjecture, so I find it rather funny. You're almost a parody of Fraser from Dad's Army.

Good news this morning, with Barnier saying that the EU will not axe the backstop. A clean WTO Brexit becomes ever more likely. I was growing worried that Boris would have us accepting the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement, the epitome of the bad deal that isn't as good as no deal.

We were playing United. It is just how it is, that the refereeing always favours them, as they get more flak frorm the hordes of plastic fans and media if they weren't biased towards them than they would from Saints fans who were wronged. Long and Armstrong were just the type of player we needed to finish the match, because both are high energy, capable of making a nuisance of themselves and track back well to aid the defence. United had the advantage of the extra man and had to go all out in attack to gain all three points. Both players offered an outlet threat though to hit them on the break from clearances out of defence.

I came away feeling that the match was like a win, given that we played with ten men for the last nearly 20 minutes. Up until the sending off of Danso we were very feasibly the better team, certainly wanting it more than them and winning more of our share of the balls in midfield. We were in their faces from the start, closing them down, pressing high in twos and threes. The only worrying part was the usual tendency to play it out from the back, sometimes losing the ball as a result in dangerous areas. Without Bertrand and with Valery not 100%, Cedric was back and acquitted himself well. Danso did very well on the left until his sending off, making several runs deep into United territory with the ball at his feet and he was a handful for their right flank. Overall in the first half, United had not produced much threat apart from their goal, which could have been at least more difficult to score had they been closed down before the shot. Having scored that early, the worry was that they could go on and score a few more, but instead it was us who upped our determination to equalise and were playing the better football, whilst United lost possession several times as a result of sloppy passing and shots well off target. So we reached half time looking very much as if we could get something from the match if we carried on playing as we had in the first half. We started the second half on the front foot and were rewarded by a superb goal from Vestergaard, United's defence allowing him a free header well clear of De Gea. Having had the confidence boost from the goal and silencing the United fans, there was every chance of going on to win the match, until the sending off of Danso for two yellows. His first one was soft, but his second one was clearly a yellow and he should have been more careful. Hopefully he will learn from it. The substitutions we had made just before were helpful, as Long and Armstrong were exactly the players needed to both tighten up the midfield and produce problems up top and Yoshida added to the defence. Boufal, Adams and Ince made way for them, Adams and Ings not having produced much threat until then anyway. The last 20 minutes was when United threw everything at us, but the defence stood firm with some good saves by Gunn and some vital clearances, which in turn produced some chances to nick a goal on the break. Most of the team played well as a unit and particular plaudits to Romeu who was a beast in midfield. Vestergaard was also immense, ably backed up by Bednarek. Boufal was also a handful and Danso very good until the red card. It would be interesting to speculate on whether we could have snatched all three points had Redmond, Djenepo and possibly Valerie been available. I think that they could have produced all sorts of problems for that United defence. At the moment they are a very poor team by their standards. As for the referee, Mike Dean was his usual incompetent self, typically favouring the big team at our expense more often than not.

But if we held a referendum on whether to hold another EU referendum and the vote was no, then the yes side would immediately insist that the no camp didn't know what they were voting for, they were old and uneducated and that therefore there should be another vote. When that was refused, the yes camp would claim that the no camp was undemocratic, and afraid of undergoing another democratic vote. There would be mass marches with massively over-estimated attendances and petitions. Yes backing MPs would take control of Parliament with the help of the Speaker and attempt to change the law so that the no vote was declared invalid. It would probably take three years and we wouldn't be any further forward.