Wes Tender

Ditto

A dour match lacking much entertainment value, but ultimately what is important was the three points and the clean sheet. It was doubly important because Burnley won against a very competent Wolves team and we remain above them and now level on points with Brighton. Three wins out of the last four, especially welcome when the three week break could have disrupted our momentum and we edge ever closer to survival and apply pressure to those around us, who will be casting glances over their shoulder. I was disappointed to hear that Vestergaard was injured, as the three CBs has served us well and allowed us the width with the full backs playing out wide, which has suited us. The first 10 or 15 minutes seemed to bear this out, Brighton controlling the midfield and winning the 50/50 balls, although doing very little with the advantage as a result. But then the midfield seemed to dust themselves down and instil a sense of urgency into their tackling and closing down and we then dominated the match until the 70th minute or so. Armstrong made a superb contribution with a full-blooded display, full of energy in his forward movement, but also tracking back fast to cover defence too. Hojbjerg and Romeu were also very good too. Once we had begun to dominate the midfield, we looked by far the team more likely to open the scoring, and a mistake by Brighton allowed us to storm upfield with the pace of Redmond bearing down on Brighton's defence with support left and right. A measured pass from Redmond to Hojbjerg and a very clever side-footed shot gave us the lead that our play had warranted. Brighton were extremely slow to get into gear, even having gone behind and if I was a fan of theirs, I would be livid at the sideways and backwards passing their players indulged in, when their fans were screaming for them to get the ball into the box to their strikers. But by that 70 minute mark, Brighton had the lion's share of the possession and the impetus to threaten clawing a goal or more back. Hasenhuttl took off a tiring and ineffective Ings to give Gallagher a chance, but he didn't do much to stem the threat from Brighton. A strengthening of the defence with Stephens, who thankfully didn't throw the game away with a stupid defensive error this time, and finally Sims on for the tiring Redmond to maintain the attacking threat should we have the opportunity of a break out of defence to attempt to put the match beyond Brighton with a second goal. I wondered whether Sims might have changed the dynamics of the match had he been brought on earlier, but ultimately the substitutions were vindicated because of the clean sheet, as much as the final 10 minutes were full on squeaky bum time. Ralph has been very effective since he came in, especially as this is largely the team that the Clown and Hughes had, and yet players that were out of favour with them have shone under Hasenhuttl and some diamonds in the rough have been unearthed and polished into decent prospects under him. Stay in the division and the prospects for the next season look very positive, once he has fashioned the team in his own image with some players of his choice brought in, and a full pre-season to get them to play his style.

The context was that we hadn't had a goal from a striker. Long doesn't score enough goals to qualify as a striker.

So was this written by Boris? No, actually the Communist Party of GB And with that, I'm happy to sit out the remaining few days until the 29th March to see what develops by then. I can see that you remoaners are all getting yourselves in an increasing frenzy as the date draws ever closer, so I'll leave you to argue among yourselves whilst I just observe your bile from outside your little bubble with an expression of detached amusement on my face. Bye. x

Still half asleep? Where have I ever suggested that I don't see remoaners as Conservatives? That's right, when you are fully awake, you will see that I haven't. Heidi Allen? Elected on a Tory manifesto as a Conservative, promising to respect the referendum vote, leave the SM and CU, voted to trigger article 50. Resigned from the party, wants to have a second/third referendum on our EU membership when we haven't even left yet, but hasn't had the decency to offer her constituency the opportunity of re-electing her, or replacing her, as she is no longer a Conservative. A fine example of a democrat - not.

You remoaners just don't understand the machinations of Conservative Party politics at all. Boris and McVey are jockeying for pole position for when May is told to arrange the removal lorries to leave No.10. May's deal will be voted down the next time too and when the leadership competition comes, there is a majority of remoaners in the house to appease, but who realise that they will have to appoint a leaver in the final two to put before the membership, or the Party is toast.

Your usual insufferably pompous drivel. It doesn't seem to occur to you that it is precisely this sort of arrogant condescending twaddle that lost remain the vote.

You seem a little confused, Adonis' mate. The business uncertainty isn't because of the 2 year transitional period, it is because that is the time that we ought to be negotiating a future trading arrangement with the EU. As nobody knows what the future deal will be with them, and indeed whether one will be concluded within that time frame, that is the cause of the business uncertainty. Either I didn't explain it well, or you didn't comprehend it well. I'm pleased to see that otherwise you are your usual arrogantly smug and insulting self.

1) We have to cough up at least £39 billion as a sweetener towards a free trade deal, without knowing what the terms will be, or even if one will be achieved. We haven't even begun discussing any future trading arrangement between us yet, beyond some meaningless waffle of the so-called Political Declaration. 2) We won't be able to sign any of our own trade deals during the period of the Withdrawal Agreement 3) Business uncertainty will be prolonged for another two years. 4) We will have to accept any new laws passed by the EU during this period, some of which might be damaging to us, and we will have no say in stopping them. And this is as requested without considerations of the backstop, which is the worst aspect of it all. Argue away about how great these things are. The only thing that I can think of that you anti-democratic remoaners will like about it, is that it leaves us worse off than we are currently in the EU, which was probably the plan all along.

https://brexitcentral.com/ignore-nay-sayers-heres-still-course-clean-brexit-29th-march/ I realise that Jeff would feel dirty reading this, so he'll probably ignore it, but despite the recent amendments, the likelihood is that we are still leaving on 29th March at 11pm on WTO terms.

If you're not prepared to accept the reasons why the Withdrawal Agreement is a really bad deal from legal experts, then why should I waste time putting it into my own words? I have much better things to do with my life than humouring you. You speak as if other posters don't habitually post links to articles to support their case, like Fry has here, to deflect from his idiocy on the football balls-up he made some years back. Likewise the answer to your other question. Frankly I thought it not worth wasting time on when you are thick enough to claim that the Euro going down the pan wouldn't have an adverse effect on our economy, and indeed other economies around the World.

You obviously didn't read it all, did you, or else you would see that it isn't all about the backstop. But then you're the idiot who can't read anything put out from the Brexit side, as it makes you feel unclean. And don't include yourself in "us" when you speak of those who know about law, economics or politics. If you claim that I don't, then you certainly don't. When are you p*ssing off out of the UK because you can't stand having leave voters all around you?

Doesn't it mean the same thing then?

I really can't be arsed to write something myself when it is so ably covered by a legal expert. Did you read the near 600 pages of the Withdrawal Agreement? Or did you read a summary of it? You are such a prat.

https://lawyersforbritain.org/the-political-declaration-does-not-save-us-from-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement Further reasons why the WA is so bad for us and also repercussions against a Canada style agreement alternative covered.

Jeff, you asked me what I had against the WA. https://lawyersforbritain.org/withdrawal-agreement-the-northern-irish-backstop-and-the-constitution-of-the-united-kingdom

You don't half post some twaddle. This is almost on a par with your opinion that Man Utd were as likely to be relegated as West Ham, some years back. I will only be cracking open the English sparkling wine if we leave on WTO terms, or some other deal which is not BRINO like May's dog's dinner.

As for you, apparently you haven't cottoned on to the new Party which Farage would lead, the Brexit Party, which was formed to distance itself from UKIP. You also fail to realise that it doesn't matter too much whether people are as precious as you, and see them as too far to the right for your liking or not. Perhaps you have heard about the rise of "populist" parties in many parts of Europe and naively don't think that it could happen here. A vote for either party would mostly be a protest vote to give the two main parties a good kicking for ignoring the Referendum vote. Apart from existing UKIP voters, this vote will come from disaffected Conservative and Labour leave voters, many of them traditional supporters of those parties, but who believe that they have been badly let down by them.

Neither I or GM were remotely confused about the difference between the WA or a deal. Nor that No Deal was that too, as it was WTO terms and in fact several other mini deals that have now been arranged between us and the EU in the case of us leaving on 29th March without "a deal". I'll get back to you later about the parts of the WA that I don't like, when I have more time.

You mean the so called worst deal in our history? The sort of bad deal that May said was not as good as no deal? The one that has been likened to the punishment deal meted out to a country defeated in a war? That deal? In any event, what is on the table isn't a deal at all. It is a Withdrawal Agreement to cover the two years when the real trade deal would be arranged. It will cost us £39 billion for something that we don't even know we will be getting in return. In almost three years since the vote to leave, we haven't even begun discussing a trade deal properly yet.

Tired as in bored, not sleepy. HTH.

UKIP's sole original reason to exist was to get us out of the EU. Having forced Cameron to promise and then deliver a referendum, it seemed that their whole raison d'etre had disappeared. In case you hadn't realised, it now looks as if Brexit is about to be ratted on by the Remoaner establishment elite, so after all, their job is not finished. Their support is once more on the increase, as it is for the new Brexit Party. It is extremely naive to suggest that just because their support had fallen, that it could not rise again under these circumstances. You show your further naivety of British politics in suggesting that the ERG are trying to hijack the Tories instead of moving to UKIP. The ERG are the main faction in Parliament wishing to honour the referendum decision to leave the EU. They were elected on a Conservative manifesto that said that the party would honour the referendum vote, that no deal was better than a bad deal, that leaving the EU meant leaving the SM and the CU, the CFP and the CAP. They are the only faction that can claim to be true to the Conservative manifesto, so they are the real Conservatives. Why on earth should they leave the Party? It is the likes of Rudd, Clark, Gauke, Hammond and other notable remoaners who should leave the Party and join the other anti-democrats like Soubry, Wollaston, Allen, etc that were happy to be elected on the back of the Conservative Party manifesto, and then to promptly rat on it and not have the common decency or ethical fortitude to then resign and face their electorates.

*yawn*

Andrew Adonis is a complete nutter and wouldn't know what democracy was if it bit him on the arse. I really enjoy him being bested by Julia Hartley-Brewer whenever he deigns to patronise the electorate on her Talk Radio programme about how stupid they were to ignore the instructions of their betters like him when advised which way to vote in the referendum.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-2014-results.htm You've gone full on fingers in ears, hands over eyes here. Do you really believe that UKIP having won the lion's share of the vote and become the biggest UK party in the European Parliament at the last elections in 2014, that the electorate won't take their revenge on the two main parties if they have to vote in the European Elections again. There are 39 seats held by Labour and the Conservatives up for grabs. Labour made gains at the last elections, the Conservative's lost ground. Both will lose many seats this time around. If you disagree, let's have your reasoning on it.