Wes Tender

Furthermore, I refuse to respond to some idiot who uses inappropriate and insulting labels to those who disagree with him. We're leaving. Suck it up.

OK, fair enough, I'll conclude that you're happy to dismiss others' opinions on what might happen in the next few weeks, but afraid to stick your own neck out. Jesus wept, eh?

I ignored it because it wasn't worth answering something so hypothetical.

Shurlock declines to answer the invitation to express his opinion on what the Brexit outcome will be. It is far easier to just post Jesus wept when somebody else does, isn't it? Come on, give us your pearls of wisdom answers to the questions I asked.

Why would the Canada plus deal mean a hard border? There will be a free trade agreement between the UK and the EU. We have stated that we don't want a hard border there, the Irish don't want one, nor do the EU. Who is therefore going to put one in place? Of course there is already a border in place there now. There is no reason why Max Facs modern technology could not be employed to overcome any problems that have mostly been manufactured purely to prevent Brexit. Your second paragraph is a load of cobblers. What exactly is May's deal? Chequers isn't acceptable to the EU, but they have offered us Canada plus. Why would they do that if it wasn't feasible with the Irish border question? I realise that no deal is unacceptable to Parliament, which comprises a majority of remoaner MPs intent on ignoring the wishes of the electorate. If they do that, then that will be the cause of massive civil unrest. You don't seem to realise that. A WTO Brexit will not cause anywhere near the economic meltdown and unemployment that you think it will. This sort of scaremongering was predicted just if we voted to leave and look how they got that massively wrong.

Do you think that May's "deal" will go through? Will there be any other "deal" proposed? Will there be an extension of Article 50, or will it be rescinded? Or will we leave on WTO terms on 29th March? What exactly do you think will happen? I don't believe that you have ever told us, but as we are getting close to the deadline, perhaps it is time to hear from you.

Of course they only have to comply with the rules that affect them. You don't have to obey parking rules if you don't have a caror any other form of transport, or to have a TV license if you don't have a TV. Regarding your examples, I have no idea. Do you? Are they a great business presence in the scheme of things?

Yes, but as I said, only 8% of businesses trade with the EU, but 100% of them have to obey all their rules.

You mean the sort of regulatory interdependence that 100% of British businesses had to endure when only 8% of them traded with the EU?

I agree with you completely. May is a halfwit. She has indeed weakened her negotiating hand at every turn and deludes herself that she will be able still to negotiate reasonable terms. She started out well enough by talking the talk, that no deal is better than a bad deal. The implied threat that one would be prepared to walk away from a deal if it was not satisfactory is basic negotiating stuff. But she had already made the catastrophic error of allowing the EU to set the agenda. We should have insisted that a trade deal should be discussed first, not after the Irish border, the payment into the EU slush fund and the settlement of the immigration question of EU and UK citizens. Whether she ended up in the situation of trying to push through quite the worst possible deal in preference to no deal by incompetence, by accident, or by design, is debatable. She further backed herself into a corner by stating that no other deal was on the table, when what she was proposing was not even a deal anyway, but merely a pretext to a potential deal a couple of years down the road, for which a payment of £39 billion would be required to begin the process with no guarantee that anything would come of it. From a negotiating perspective, Nolan is entirely correct, that we would have had a far stronger hand from demonstrating our willingness to leave under WTO terms right from the start. It is ironic though that the default position of leaving under WTO terms will take place on 29th March 2019 unless we reach agreement with the EU on a transition period towards a trade deal with them before then. May's "deal" won't get through Parliament, so unless we ask for an extension to Article 50, or drop Brexit altogether, both of which would trigger widespread civil unrest, we are out on that date. Under the current circumstances with all of the hassle over the transition period and the probability that even then we will not emerge with a good deal, the WTO option is the most attractive outcome for our future prosperity, unless a Canada +++ deal can be agreed at the last minute, which is extremely unlikely. It is comforting to believe that there is a good chance that if the remoaners in the UK are sh*tting themselves as the clock runs down, that the EU is also doing the same. I suspect that most Brexiteers are quite sanguine about it all, and see leaving under WTO terms to be the preferred and proper Brexit option anyway.

You get the prize for the crap analogy again. You surpass yourself once more. I'm in awe of your ability to come out with ever more bizarre ripostes, I take my cap off to you, you're truly the master of it.

You really need to go and see a shrink. You have a screw loose. Tell your children to emigrate to the EU, the land of milk and honey, as their chances are ruined in the UK and they won't have to put up with the 52% of their fellow countrymen that have ruined their futures. Or something like that.

Spot on, Badger. Bring it all on, I just can't wait.

We played our reserve team, probably having written off any chance of beating City, and I'm quite surprised that the final score was just 3-1. Had we been given the penalty,and had Austin taken his chance when clean through on the keeper, things might have been more interesting, but City used the match as a training exercise, an opportunity to give themselves a bit of a rest in a hectic schedule, and they were capable of going up one or even two gears if needed. Even a couple of players on their bench were worth more than our entire squad. Hasenhuttl used the match as an opportunity to have a further look at our squad, even to blood a further youngster, and he will have a good idea of what works for us and who the dead wood players are to ditch, and where the team needs strengthening. Had we been more determined to make a game of it, then Yoshida's pace would have been helpful at the back, maybe also Vestergaard's bulk. Although we had our three best midfielders on the pitch, we missed Armstrong and Redmond's pace earlier on, so Austin had little service, but in any event Ings would have given much more. As for Elyounoussi, what exactly is the point of him? Once again, he showed us what a class act Tadic could be on his day. If it is Hasenhuttl's intention to target Chelsea for a point or more, then it is easy to see why we could have expected little from this team and the tactics. The high press was fairly non-existent, as was the closing down, the fast one-touch passing and the quick forward movement. The loss of Hojbjerg following his stupid tackle will be great though. Because of our lack of bite and effort and City's training ground mentality, the whole event was a dreadful bore. But the January transfer window in nearly upon us, and I trust Hasenhuttl to introduce some talent from the German leagues and to ship out the dross from our squad.

You probably offend them quite a lot. It's your nature to be offensive.

Exactly the point. What you idiots don't seem to acknowledge is the difference between articles written by journalists as opinion pieces in independent newspapers and news items in a supposedly politically neutral national media organ. But if you lot are not bright enough to recognise that difference, then more fool you. Anyway, as I already pointed out, when I heard the news later in the day, they had dropped the "crashing out" bias, probably because many others had picked it up and complained, as I did.

Did I say that they weren't? I said independent, not impartial, which is what the BBC is supposed to be and isn't.

It seems to have gone right over your and Shurlock's head that these are independent newspapers, whereas the BBC is our national broadcaster whose news items are supposed to be neutral.

delete

I can quite understand why the use of the phrase "crashing out" didn't register in your brain as being shrill and biased, Shurlock. But it seems that many others must have complained to the BBC about it, because when I listened to the Radio2 news later on, they simply referred to it as leaving without a deal.

Radio 2 news announced these plans in the event of us "crashing out" of the EU without a deal. Here is a gilt-edged example of the bias of our national broadcaster. We would not be crashing out, we would be leaving without a deal on WTO terms. The referendum question didn't ask whether we wished to remain in the EU, or to crash out of it, as that would be bias towards remaining. So why do the BBC believe that they can describe it in such terms and not understand that it is blatant bias?

Is it too much to ask for some consistency in refereeing? Fine if he's going to let the carthorse Carroll get away with industrial level thuggery, provided that he allows our players the same. He didn't.

As likely as Man Utd to get relegated. That one?

Agree with all that. Shurlock must have mistaken Vestergaard for somebody else; he was solid pretty well throughout. Had we had the VAR though, Redmond's goal might have been disallowed. I thought that Redmond might have turned a corner this season, but he was back to his annoying lightweight alter ego, running up blind alleys, keeping the ball too long and poor passing giving it away in attacking positions. Hasenhuttl would have learned a valuable lesson last night, that Long isn't a valid substitute for Ings when you are chasing a game. All the things that we got right against Arsenal we ceased doing after 10 minutes, especially the high press closing. The amount of space that we allowed Andersen to shoot for his first goal was criminal. We had several chances to score, two in the first three minutes, but as is often the case, West Ham finished their chances and we didn't. There were at least a couple where you would have expected Ings to score, but Long couldn't. Hasenhuttl has been very tactically astute up to now, but he got it wrong last night. Back to the same plan employed against Arsenal when we play City, please. They are the archetypal team that you can't allow to have the space to play their game.

You really are in a tizzy, aren't you? I advise that you calm down before you burst a blood vessel. And wrong about me too and what I vote for, but you just go along and think what you like, as usual. The main reason I voted to leave wasn't the immigration issue. That was only a part of several reasons. You loser remoaners like to tar everybody with that brush, so carry on deluding yourself. And I did vote UKIP once in the European Parliamentary Elections. So wrong again. As I've already stated, history will judge him on what becomes of Brexit. If it is a success like declining to join the ERM was, then it will laud him as being instrumental in the part he played in bringing that about. If it is a failure, then he will be blamed. But it will be a success.