Wes Tender

Suit yourself imagining that you know what I know, or think, or feel. Personally I really couldn't give a toss.

I know all about Indian Independence and partition. My comment about the movements to stop it were very much tongue in cheek. The situation of us leaving the EU is totally different from India's independence from us and wouldn't have been mentioned in the same breath as Indian Independence had it not been for this Indian writer sticking his oar in with his comical and faulty analysis.

It was before I was born, Shurlock. Tell, me, when it was decided that India would gain their independence, was there a movement and plans to try and reverse the decision?

I think that he should stick to writing fiction and travel guides instead of comedy.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/11/george-soros-proud-donating-anti-brexit-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive Merely in the interests of balance, as I said, Shurlock. We have this comedy organisation, The Brexit Syndicate, formed to highlight their Brexit conspiracy theory and listing the main protagonists and the organisations behind it. Remain's financing was not any more squeaky clean than Leave's and there are as many groups and players in it campaigning to thwart Brexit. Leave won the democratic referendum vote, and if there are several organisations formed to see it thorough, that is largely because they need to counter the number of organisations formed by the establishment attempting to stop it.

LOL! Glorious satirical stuff. I think that there is enough material here and in the Brexit syndicate site for a political comedy film, what with the conspiracy theories that abound and are the basis for it. However, it is all very well claiming that there is a conspiracy on the Brexit side with backing for this particular agenda and the lies and deceit which are a part of it, but to be really credible as a film, it would need to show the agenda of the other side, pressing for a Federal United States of Europe and the backers financing them, the likes of Soros and the multi national business lobby.

Your proposal for how the referendum should have been handled in your opinion, was totally impractical, as the EU would not have played ball, as they are not doing now. In any event, would the EU have had any incentive to have offered a good deal to us, knowing that it would have encouraged a vote to leave, and also furnished good reasons for other member states to follow us out? I would be perfectly happy to have a third referendum vote on our membership of the EEC/EU with a bilateral choice of May's deal or leave on WTO terms. But those who want a losers' referendum before we have even left the EU want to have Remain on the ballot. The only problem with this referendum you are proposing, is the length of time it would take, when we should be out on WTO terms on 29th March anyway, unless we arrange a deal with the EU before then. So what would be the point of it? I'll throw your last question back at you. Following the next General Election, should we ignore the result and campaign to have it overturned a few months later? You just don't understand this democracy lark, do you? As you believe that you're so sound on what you think is democratic, please do let us know whether you think that there should have been referenda held for each of the treaties that we signed which altered the entire basis of the original reason that we joined the so-called Common Market? Had they taken place, we wouldn't be having this situation now.

I had Redmond as MOTM, but I don't disagree that Hojbjerg was immense. But the variety of votes for different players just goes to show how well the entire team played. If the whole team plays with as much cohesion, spirit, effort and belief as this, we are a match for almost anybody on our day.

The transformation in this team since the arrival of Hasenhuttl has been nothing short of incredible in a comparatively short period of time. These are much the same players available to The Clown and to Hughes, but players favoured by them have been dropped and some of those them not favoured by those two have been promoted into the team by Hasenhuttl, along with several of the youngsters who were largely an unknown quantity, except to those who followed our academy matches. Even those deemed to be first choice players, have increased their fitness, ability and their self belief. Either by choice or from circumstances, Hasenhuttl has selected several players consistently and they have grown into a unit quickly, understanding how they are to play cohesively and what to expect from their team mates. But when injuries or suspensions have taken out key players, he selects somebody to step into the breach and they generally acquit themselves well enough to be considered an effective substitute. This way, it begins to look as if we have some strength in depth and have had a good look at the youngsters too. The most surprising thought that occurred to me walking back to my car after the match, was that despite thinking at the time when Hasenhuttl took over that we needed to make several key positional signings in the January transfer window, I was now musing on whether it would be a disaster if we made none before the window closed. Yes, a really effective striker would be nice, and extra cover at the back too, but we have been able to score goals recently, albeit that some of them are coming from midfielders and potentially defenders. But Redmond is getting better and better and Ings is back, although a bit off the pace today. If we don't identify a new striker, could Hasenhuttl utilise them with Long/Austin and develop Obafemi and Gallagher into credible alternatives? As for the defence, they are improving as a unit with each match. In central defence, Bednarek, Vestergaard, Stephens and Yoshida all look solid, and with Bertrand to come back from injury, the wide slots with him or Targett on the left and Valerie and Cedric on the right also looks decent. As for the midfield, Romeu and Hojbjerg have really stepped up under Hasenhuttl and surpassed Lemina, who is a very good player on his day and could also improve further. Recently James Ward-Prowse has shown a marked improvement and looks more like the player he was expected to be having been selected constantly by the England youth teams. His goal today was excellent. Armstrong also has shown himself to be a strong and effective attacking midfielder with an eye for goal. Whether Elyounoussi will develop into a asset is my only niggle. It is greatly to Hasenhuttl's credit that at the start of the season, it was difficult to pick out any player that other teams would covet, but now it begins to look as if the improvement in several of them might mean that glances are being cast in our direction once more, but thankfully it has probably come too late for them to poach any before the window closes. After the disappointment of the Cup defeat on Wednesday, we needed a win to lift spirits, but it is fair to say that today we had a pretty full strength squad back, whereas we were forced to play a number of the youngsters in the Cup match, also ensuring that first choice players wouldn't be too tired or risking injury before this match. Hojbjerg's return was very welcome and his partnership with the much improved Romeu gave us a commanding presence in midfield. Bedarek also strengthened the defence. Whereas it is good to give players marks out of ten, in games like these, I prefer not to pick out particular players when the whole team played really well. The style of play is reminiscent of that which we had under Pochettino, the high pressing, the closing down of space and the hunting in packs. It really is enjoyable to watch and very effective. Some have commented that Everton were poor today, but could it be that the way that we played and our tactics made them look poor? Finally, the referee. Like most, I fail to understand how so much extra time was added to the extra time. However, during the actual match, I thought that he was OK. Everton are one of the worst teams for diving to get free kicks, particularly players like Richarlison. The ref didn't fall for their tricks often and let play continue, much to the indignation of those cheats. Their frustration boiled over eventually late in the game, and Redmond was in a spat with several players from both teams involved. He is prone to be over-passionate in those situations and needs to be careful not to be red-carded. He was excellent today otherwise. Under The Clown and Hughes, the club's mantra "We March On", seemed a hollow joke. Under Hasenhuttl, it has become a serious declaration of intent

So these big corporations are solely concerned with what is best for the UK and its employees? How altruistic of them. None of them considered that the EU's protectionist policies that favoured them by stifling competition from smaller rivals were a factor in them wanting to remove a no deal option at all, neither did they even realise that via a no deal Brexit ending free movement, they might be deprived of much of their low paid workers and have to pay more to their employees. Amazon of course, is well known for this, so little wonder that they would be in favour of lobbying the Government to ditch the no deal option. As I said, you are as naive as they come.

Really? I have to negotiate business deals on a daily basis, as does Nick. How about you? Your naivety on basic negotiating tactics suggests you do not, Regarding your second point, again, how naive can you really be? They want no deal removed from the table to produce precisely the sort of bad deal that May has come up with, hoping that it will lead to us remaining in the EU, under the protectionist cartel policies that stifle competition against them. There are veiled threats that if they are not allowed to try and stop a no deal Brexit that several Cabinet and middle ranking Ministers might resign. Well, I for one think that getting rid of Hammond, Gauke, Rudd and Clark would be a cause for celebration.

Of course you don't understand it. You don't understand that walking away from a bad deal is a strong negotiating tactic, or that if somebody is not advocating violence if they merely predict it.

You're still unable to comprehend that if one forecasts a turn of events, that one is not necessarily advocating them. It's a simple concept, Shurlock. You are undoubtedly intelligent, so I fail to see why you are acting so thick. Still with the infantile insults, Shurlock?

Simple. Total incompetence from the Vicar's daughter, the worst Tory PM ever.

It comes as no surprise at all to me that you include yourself among those who do not comprehend the first principle of business negotiation, that one must be prepared to walk away from a bad deal. And then you go and shoot yourself in the foot by claiming that the EU don't believe that we would walk away from a lousy deal, therefore they have no incentive to improve it, thus confirming the whole point of that strategy. You arrogantly assume that you yourself are not part of the comedy routine on a football forum, when refusing to accept such a basic negotiation tactic makes you a prime candidate. Nobody denies that there is a majority of Remain MPs in Parliament apparently not prepared to honour the instructions of their electorates and negotiate a proper Brexit and the EU should recognise that either a mutually acceptable trade deal should be negotiated, or we leave with no deal on WTO terms. If our Parliament is stupid enough to remove no deal as an option, the EU won't be able to believe their luck, and can proceed to treat us with contempt as a vassal state colony, What they fear most is us leaving on WTO terms and making a success of it, as we will. At the moment, that is the default position on 29th March at 11pm, unless either the EU offers a more acceptable solution to the impasse they created with the Irish backstop, or the Remoaner majority in the House comes up with some treachery to extend Article 50 or remove it.

Of course you have to. It's basic business negotiating sense, despite Shurlock and Verbal not being able or willing to comprehend it.

It seems that the BBC slipped up with its audience selection. They're supposed to represent the Remain side like the panel, not Leave. Nice to see an audience cheering proper Leave for a change, instead of the idiotic whooping from the Momentum yoof wing that are usually present supporting their Remain speakers' every word. Could it be that the audience were so vociferous because they are very angry and heartily fed-up with the failure of government to deliver on their referendum vote and that they now perceive that Brexit may be thwarted? Or that on the panel was sat the most incompetent Shadow Home Secretary ever in Labour Party history? As is usually the case with Remoaners like you, you arrogantly label Brexiteers as idiots, thus denigrating over half of the electorate, but those idiots were bright enough to realise that Abbott's and Labour's stance that they would not negotiate on a deal without taking no deal off the table is the most stupid negotiating position that they could possibly employ. They also despise talk of "peoples votes", as if it wasn't people who told them what they wanted in June 2016 and they are angered that the establishment didn't listen to them the first time around. As events during the past couple of weeks unfold and plots to overthrow Brexit begin to surface, so the electorate's anger will grow ever stronger until it reaches the point where it turns into direct action on the streets. Places like Derby and other leave voting cities in Labour's traditional industrial heartlands in the Midlands and North, are where the civil unrest will be strongest.

Maybe Gove wrote the speech. He is actually quite bright and articulate.

I watched it earlier and did contemplate posting it on the Corbyn thread. As it says, a barnstorming speech, nailing Corbyn and why he is not fit to be PM. The fact that Shurlock doesn't rate it reduce its effectiveness not a single jot.

A good summary. Likewise I agree that Elyounoussi was diabolical. He doesn't tackle enough or well enough. He lacks pace and has poor control of the ball, which he gave away far too often. What was blindingly obvious was that he isn't good enough to lace the boots of the player he was meant to replace, Tadic. I get the feeling that all that would have been required to tip the balance our way last night, was to have had Tadic play instead of Elyounoussi, had he still been at the club. When we were two up, in my opinion that would have been the time to bring on Bednarek, and maybe make the Targett substitution at the same time, allowing Cedric to switch to his natural side, firming up the defence. I agree that the youngsters didn't let themselves down. Personally, I thought that Gallagher looked good in his short cameo. He is strong and fast, and I feel that Hasenhuttl will help his development into a good striker. Under different circumstances, this Cup match was indeed very winnable, but key players weren't available for one reason or another. Even one or two of either Bertrand, Ings, Hojbjerg, Austin and even Valery could have swung the match our way, but the match came too soon for them. When we have most of those available at Everton, that will be very much to our advantage. On the plus side, although it was disappointing to go out of the Cup, especially as we would have had a much easier fixture against Accrington Stanley in the next round, Hasenhuttl could make a valuable assessment of several of the youngsters in a full-blooded match. Most will have impressed, apart from Elyounoussi.

Complete and utter drivel. I suggest that if the remoaners don't thwart the decision of the referendum, you make a judgement on how it will affect you and your children after a few years, not before it has even happened.

£39 Billion to pay the pensions! My God, what are the Eurocrats earning? There is no legal obligation to pay anything if leaving under WTO terms. Some say that we should hive off things like the pensions and pay that, but also present our bill to the EU for monies they owe us, £9 Billion or so as our share of the EIB, part ownership of some buildings, fine wines, artworks and a refund of our investment in the Galileo project among others.

It seems to have escaped your attention that we haven't yet left the EU, or stopped paying money into their slush fund. If we left without a deal on WTO terms, we owe them nothing legally, so some of those monies can go to the NHS to supplement recent Government expenditure. Yes, Freedland's article was an opinion piece, as was mine, but there were several things he said that were certainly not factual. The article contained no statistics, and was weak on the politics and legislation.

You will note that I quoted the whole of his sentence, not only about crashing out, but the wild-eyed Brexiteers / economic and social catastrophe bits too. The full arrogant rant at people who he obviously despises. But I note that apart from these petty little niggles from you, Verbal and Shurlock, the main thrust of my post in response to the request to identify where I thought that Freedland was spouting rubbish, has not been challenged. I would be interested to see the article wherein the official Vote Leave campaign said that it would be "insane" to leave without a deal. I am in favour of arranging a mutually beneficial trade deal with the EU in preference to leaving without a deal, but not if it would take two years or more to set up and involve us paying copious amounts into the EU slush fund. As things stand right now, it is either Canada +++ or leave on WTO terms, keeping the £39 billion, which we can put to very good use in smo0othing the Brexit, boosting the economy and for services like the NHS.

*Yawn* You're like a stuck record. As others said, you need help.