Wes Tender

Exactly. Which is why I didn't even bother to respond to Jeff at all. He just doesn't recognise the irony of his selective dislikes compared to those of others.

What a load of cobblers. What it shows is that you are an ignorant ****.

Think what you like. It doesn't bother me. I have stated on several occasions that I was far more motivated by sovereignty issues than by trade. Also I am not anti-immigrant, but anti uncontrolled immigration, which of course is not a racist position. No matter how many times I say this, your cranium is impenetrable, so why would I bother what you think anyway? You're just a blinkered and obdurate remoaner, demonstrated by your ludicrous attempt to justify the reason why the Remain vote lost by assumptions of what the result might have been had the demographics of the vote been altered to favour your position. That isn't how democracy works, sonny. It is one person one vote above the age of 18 without an upper limit. Sorry. Pat Condell has you down to a tee. It is almost as if he knew you personally.

You two just typify the arrogant and ignorant remoaner position. Brexiteers voted to leave for all sorts of reasons and it has been the failure of the Remain campaign to understand those reasons and to address them in a civilised manner that led to their defeat. And here you are two and a half years later and you still arrogantly dismiss the Leave position as being represented by the old, racist and thick. It strikes me that if you fail to learn the reasons for your lot's defeat, then it is you who are the thickos. As we get closer by the day to leaving via a clean WTO Brexit, the Remoaner media get more and more shrill in their hysteria about what a disaster we face, and the more bizarre the claims become, the more they are likely to be ignored as just project fear on steroids. I just can't wait for May's so called deal to be rejected. She has backed herself into such a corner by insisting that her deal is the only one on the table and that leaving without a deal would be a calamity, that she would be humiliated if she was forced then into accepting any alternative. She would have to resign, and good riddance. She parroted her mantra that no deal was better than a bad deal, and then proceeded to come up with the worst possible deal, despised by both sides. The tide is turning fast to the position that a WTO deal would be far better than her deal and finally some preparations are being made for that scenario. Over in the EU, as the deadline day grows ever closer, we will begin to see some cracks appearing in their intransigent stance.

Do you agree with his previous article that the people are sovereign? As for your stupid premise that there should be a loser's referendum before we have even enacted the decision of the last one two and a half years ago, then LD sums it up very well in his response. Please be assured that I am not throwing any kind of hissy fit about it. I am calmly watching the clock run down to the default position if we don't agree a trade deal with the EU before the 29th March, leaving on WTO terms. But just to annoy the hell out of you and your fellow anti-democrat remoaners, I give you this:-

A fairly good first half where the gap in quality between the two team was pretty evident, even though we played quite a few of our reserves and youngsters. Despite not having the muscle in midfield that players like Lemina, Hojbjerg (if available), or Romeu would have brought to the team, we still were winning more of the possession, and the passing was generally neat. Although Austin and Long didn't add much threat up top, Redmond did and he was a constant thorn in Derby's side. I think that he should be credited with the first goal, as his shot was on target before their player deflected it. His second goal was quite stunning. As we started the second half, there didn't appear to be enough quality or threat from Derby to suggest that we could not win it at a stroll, but perhaps complacency sank in and we grew careless and took our foot off the pedal. We didn't defend in numbers when they broke through and a well taken goal from them lifted their spirits. It should have been a wake-up call to our players, but Derby were the team playing with the belief and urgency and we had lost the midfield and the high pressing and the momentum was with them. We had chances to have gone ahead, particularly with the chance Elyounoussi had, and all he had to do was head the ball to the left or right of their keeper. Thankfully, right at the death in extra time, Derby had the chance to have knocked us out with pretty well the last kick, but their player was equally wasteful, earning us a replay at St Mary's. Hasenhuttl was adventurous in playing several of the youngsters, which is to his credit, and will have learned some valuable lessons. Austin, Long and Elyounoussi were largely a waste of space. The full backs were OK, particularly playing better with Cedric on his natural side and both got forward well. But when Derby's tails were up in the second half, the extra CB was needed. In the end, although we were much the better team in the first half, overall the match was finely balanced at the conclusion. But we could have tipped that balance in our favour had we played one or two of the stronger players available to us. Hasenhuttl probably saw it as an opportunity to test some of the youngsters while keeping those experienced first choice players fresh for the PL. On the plus side, we are closer to the return of Hojbjerg and also Bertrand, plus any other players we might bring in to improve the team.

Why would they wish to have chocolate owned by an American brand behind the doors?

You've widened the scope rather substantially from my two line post, haven't you? And when talking about sovereignty, you conveniently missed the word independent in front of it. We might have a monarchy, our own currency, government and revenue authority. But then if all in the garden of sovereignty was rosy, there would be no need for a vote to leave the EU to regain control of our money, our borders and our laws, would there? See the commonality of those things? As a member of the Conservative Party, I have no need of patronising advice on the state of the party. The membership is substantially in favour of Brexit, but very much against May's "deal". Over 50% of the party want a new leader, so she is almost certainly toast if her deal is rejected in the Commons, as it will be. It is a bit previous to be discussing the future political landscape at this stage, as it isn't clear whether there will be a losers' rerun of the referendum, or an election before the legislated 5 year period expires. Regarding your reference to the miners strike, the political landscape has changed quite a bit since then, but they are much the same areas that voted leave in the highest numbers, and they will be the ones where there will be consdierable civil unrest if Brexit doesn't happen. As for your assessment of the state of the political parties, I don't disagree. May is the worst Tory PM ever, presiding over the worst cabinet, chosen by her. Also Labour's front bench is a joke and the Lib Dems are totally insignificant.

I accept that there are many who are anti-democratic and want a losers' referendum because they think that the plebs got it wrong the first time. But as he says in his reasoned analysis, there are numerous problems associated with a further referendum, what the choices should be and the timescale required to hold one. I have already made my position crystal clear, that it is a complete farce to have a third referendum before we have enacted the second one. But if you're prepared to accept his authority on this, then presumably you also accept his premise that the people are sovereign on matters like this, not Parliament, you know, the actual point of his previous article.

Is wishing to leave the EU and returning to governing ourselves as a sovereign independent nation extremism? I hadn't realised that. I thought that any self-respecting nation would wish to be able to do that. The problem with your little fantasy of wishing to have our parliamentary democracy run by centrist moderates, is that they have to be elected by the voters. And if you choose to ignore the will of over half of them, then what you will encourage is the growth of more extreme populist parties and the decline of the traditional parties.

Ask Theresa May and her majority Remoaner cabinet and the majority remoaner house why they have not delivered on the nation's will expressed in the referendum. One thing is for sure, if they don't get it done, then the repercussions for our parliamentary democracy will be very severe.

Of course I read it. And I highlighted it to point out that the title of his piece indicated that the people's sovereignty trumped Parliament's over issues like this. Regrettably I don't get your link to work, so I cannot read his thoughts on a second/third referendum. Is he arguing that the second/third referendum is needed because the people are sovereign again, as he did the first time? Taking that line about the finality of democratic politics being alien I agree with. That is precisely why this second referendum was long overdue over 40 years after the first one. However, I would disagree with him if he was arguing that a third referendum was needed when the second one had not even been enacted.

You didn't read the article, did you? If you did, then no doubt you will be happy to point out where you think Bogdanor is wrong, and explain your superior qualification to question his verdict.

Wrong. There is a very good article in the FT on December 9th 2016. Its title is "After the referendum, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign. It is written by one of the most preeminent authorities on British Constitutional history, Vernon Bogdanor. You and Verbal might care to read it to set yourselves right.

I wouldn't expect anything else from you, as you are clearly not a democrat. As for this laughable description of a "people's vote", what the f*ck was the last referendum? As for it being the least damaging way out, it is quite the opposite. A substantial percentage of the electorate who voted to leave the EU will lose all faith in our democracy and their MPs. If the result of this further referendum was 52% to remain v 48% to leave, the campaign to have another referendum would begin the day after. In any event, there is the strong possibility that the leave side would tell their supporters to boycott the vote, rendering it void of credibility. As for your last sentence, it is the usual shrill stuff that one has come to expect from hardcore remoaners like you. Carpet-bombing is a new one on me. Full marks for your imagination of the even more bizarrely extreme description of the effects to the economy. It makes a change from cliff edges, crashing out, etc.

No, not some Messiah, but the rebirth of the UK as an independent nation once again, free to control its own destiny perhaps. As we will be freed from Brussels, it could be fitting to have Belgian chocolate behind each daily door.

No, as I said before, I'm perfectly sanguine about the whole situation. I'm thinking that some sort of Advent Calendar counting off the days until the 29th March might be a popular item.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/28/exclusive-civil-servant-accuses-ministers-project-fear-mark/ Obviously he works in a broom cupboard far away from those who work with this bloke. Or perhaps he is just not being honest with you as part of Project fear Mk111 where he sees you as an ardent remoaner, so useful to stoke up the fires of fear with doubts.

A very good summary

An excellent performance from us throughout. It begins to look as if Ralph had selected the weaker team against City so that we stood more of a chance against Chelsea by resting some players. This team was back to what they did right against Arsenal, closing them down, denying them space, pressing high up the pitch, hunting for the ball in packs, everything that a team of quality individuals like Chelsea's doesn't like. The fact that we were able to field much the same players for the majority of the match and that they were able to maintain the intensity is testament to an improvement in their fitness under Hasenhuttl. Three centre backs was the right way to defend against a team like Chelsea and they were immense tonight, especially Yoshida. Gunn look very assured behind them, and Romeu and J W-P provided good midfield cover, with Armstrong and Redmond very tenacious ahead of them. Ings hadn't been getting much service, so a switch to Long didn't add much going forward, but his pace would be a threat from the ball over the top, but also an asset if needed to track back into defence. The full backs largely stopped Chelsea marauding down the flanks. Valerie dealt well with Hazard, who is their game-changer. Cedric although on the wrong wing, is solid defensively and got forward well, although his crossing was awry. As the match progressed, Chelsea became more and more frustrated and resorted to shots from distance which didn't trouble Gunn. Also we kept the crowd quiet and it was our fans who could be heard more often than not. All in all, a very satisfactory result for us, when most would not have expected us to not only gain a point, but also to keep a clean sheet. I get the weird feeling that had we had Hojbjerg available, Bertrand fit on the left, Cedric on the right, That might just have pushed us over the line to sneaking a win. Just one incident I wondered about; our free kick just outside their area, J W-P steps up, and Vestergaard gesticulating quite clearly and several times that he felt the Chelsea players weren't back ten yerds, or that they had encroached over the line. It certainly didn't look anything like 10 yards to me, although the camera angle can distort the perspective. A run of easier fixtures ahead now, so let's chalk up some wins and get some confidence and momentum running through the side.

I don't recall you pointing that out to the likes of Shurlock or Verbal.

Your further misunderstanding of the entire thrust of my post clearly illustrates that you are indeed a bit dim. Read it again, this time more slowly and try and differentiate between somebody expressing an opinion in an independent media outlet and somebody reading the news on the BBC. 1.3.2 The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter specifies that we should do all we can "to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality" in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It also states that our output is forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services. The Accuracy, Impartiality and Politics, Public Policy and Polls sections of the Editorial Guidelines incorporate the BBC Trust's code as required under Paragraph 44 (5) of the Agreement, giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in connection with Paragraphs 44(1) to 44(4) of the Agreement.

You really must be a bit dim. I am perfectly well aware of what the BBC's charter entails. You are in a hole and digging it ever deeper. You fail to accept that there is any difference between the standards required for the News and political programmes like Newsnight. And the argument that just because pro-Brexit outlets have some contributors using the "crashing out" terminology means that it isn't biased is a pathetic argument. Whether these outlets are pro-Brexit or not, they are independent organisations, and naturally they will have some contributors to the debate who will be Remoaners using that phrase. And when they use it, then they clearly indicate their bias towards the opinion that it will be a disaster for the UK. It is shrill language, anti-Brexit propaganda. You seem to have totally misunderstood the whole point of my post. I fully expect the BBC, full of Remoaners and lefties to be biased towards the remain position on their political programmes like Newsnight and Daily Politics. Everybody expects and accepts that to be the case. The reason for my post was because the phrase was used in a News item. If they reported that ex-PMs Major and Blair predicted that our departure would be bad for our economy and used that phraseology, then they are reporting an opinion of others. What they cannot do is use that sort of propaganda themselves. On the News programmes, the clue is in the name; they are there to report news, not express opinions. I trust that the difference might now have penetrated your cranium.

Respond, as in answer questions asked by him. HTH

So no New Year's resolution from you that with the passing of another year that you would make an effort to grow up. How sad. Maybe next year then.