Wes Tender

I have already accepted that you have always been a remoaner. Didn't you read that?

Of course we can't have the same exact benefits of EU membership if we left. The most ridiculous position in politics at the moment is that idiot Starmer making it a condition of Labour's acceptance. So we lose some benefits and gain others, such as the control of our own affairs as an independent sovereign nation. Worth it every day. The position that we couldn't have the same exact benefits was made abundantly clear during project fear and now they are employing it again, this time on steroids. Despite that, the electorate preferred to be free of the EU in the vote and if anecdotally some feel that they were deceived by things said by the leave campaign, there will be at least a similar number deceived by the remain campaign.

You were sure enough that we would end up with the Norway option that you accepted a £50 bet on it, payable to charity by the loser. Of course I always knew that you were a remoaner. 2.5 years later and you still claim that the promised benefits of leaving won't materialise, but the economic costs will. Blinkered enough to not recognise even the possibility of any upside at all.

Norway isn't keen on the idea of us joining them anyway as a short term expediency towards then leaving a couple of years later.

I'm not worried at all. Neither has public opinion moved far at all from June 2016. After all, the default position on 29th March is that we leave on WTO terms. It would take an act of some considerable daring for either or both of the main parties to thwart the democratic decision of the electorate in the referendum; even extending the Article 50 period would provoke considerable civil unrest.

The horse poo that's on offer isn't leave, it's BRINO, half in/half out. It's the epitome of the bad deal that May famously said is worse than no deal. Likewise Norway. Now, I realise how much you love the Norway option, in your muddled let's stay as close to the EU as we can be thinking, but that doesn't fulfill the Brexit brief either. Just to refresh your memory, that required taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. Do you see where Norway falls short of that?

You really have no idea about democracy putting forward specious arguments like that. And of course the establishment remoaners wouldn't have accepted a leave win under any circumstances, without trying their hardest to overturn it. But not only do they want to overturn the referendum vote, they want to ignore the GE manifestos of the two major Parties who both promised to honour the referendum decision. As for your final line, should democracy be ignored to the extent that there is a second referendum, I presume that you will be perfectly happy that for the original referendum decision to be overturned, it will require a two thirds majority, won't you?

There are thick people on both sides.

And here is the crux of the matter. Even if it were a starter to hold another referendum, what choice or choices would be on the ballot paper? Would staying in the EU be on it, even though a decision to leave had already been voted for? We are told by our Prime minister that her deal is the only deal on the table. Everybody but her knows that isn't true and you have yourself given two further trade deal options to hers. Apart from the obvious argument that a second referendum would be undemocratic when the decision of the first one had not even been implemented, there are the further problems including the one you have raised. Another is that if we allow the UK to have a second referendum because the losers didn't agree with the decision, we could hardly disallow the Scots having another one on their independence, could we? And if the result was 52/48 in favour of remain on a lower vote, the day after there would be an entirely legitimate campaign started to make it best of three. A further option is that a campaign among leave voters to boycott the second referendum would mean that the result did not give a mandate of legitimacy. In any event, a second referendum wouldn't solve the impasse we are currently in, that the majority in the House don't want us to leave and are not prepared to honour the wishes of their constituents.

OK, clever clogs, define significant in that context. What they were talking about was membership of the single market, not access to it. Whilst you're at it, define temporary in terms of the amount of time that we might have to be in a customs union as part of the so-called and totally unnecessary "back-stop". Apart from the Norway and Canada options, which other options did it discuss as part of your "host" of options. Or does two constitute a host? And of course, I knew exactly what I was voting for, certainly enough to pick holes in that propaganda leaflet, left, right and centre.

A host of options? LOL. It only mentioned Norway and Canada and told us that under a Norway deal we would have to continue to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement. That is a downside to the Norway option, isn't it? Because now some are advocating we go that way. As for Canada..... "No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to: follow EU rules over which they have no real say pay into the EU accept EU citizens living and working in their country 27’28 A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the single market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy.29 For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services,30 it has so far been 7 years in the making and is still not in force. 31 The weasel word in the statement above is "significant". Of course the vast majority of nations have access to the single market under WTO terms without having to pay into the EU or to have to accept freedom of movement of EU citizens. Canada doesn't do so either. But it is futile raking over old coals and re-fighting the referendum campaign again. The whole leaflet is anyway a massive propaganda exercise funded by us, the taxpayers. If loose statements like these were being made in a leaflet supporting the leave position, you would be all over them like a rash.

Another day of puerile name-calling by Verbal. When are you finally going to grow up? You never did tell me how old you are.

It isn't the electorate who have changed their minds, at least not a significant percentage of them. It is the losers who never accepted the decision in the first place, trying to whip up a frenzy of hysteria and pretending that there exists a groundswell of opinion for another referendum.

And if it was like a divorce, then the decision would have been made by one or other of the parents, not having it made for them by a third party. The decision was made by the electorate for the government, which is why it was a crap analogy.

Interesting statistic about Austin. Apparently, it is only Sterling in PL history who has a better record of scoring goals against one particular team with 6 against Bournemouth, compared with Austin's five against the Arse. They really must hate him.

Crap analogy comparing it to a divorce. It is much nearer the mark comparing it to terminating one's membership of a club, the decision having been taken by the members.

The better team won. Their two goals came from defensive errors from us, (one of them from a wicked deflection), ours came from good open attacking play. We had several shots on target that required their keeper to gather them in. McCarthy hardly had anything to do. We were winning the 50/50 midfield battles because we wanted it more. It was exactly the way to play Arsenal, to get in their faces, deprive them of the space to pick out the passes, close them down in their own half. They have a team full of World class players, but they aren't allowed to show their skills if they don't have the space to dictate play. It was something rare at St Mary's not only as a home win, but also a very entertaining game of football. We can be proud of our team today, because all of them gave their all for the cause. It is far too early to be over optimistic about our new manager and what he can do for us, but at least it looks like a statement of intent, a glimpse of what we might possibly have to look forward to. Ralph Hasenhuttl, thank you for coming here to manage us. It was a dangerous step in your career, a real challenge taking us over following our decline over the past couple of managers. But if you enhance your reputation here sufficiently to warrant one of the best jobs in World football, we will logically be considerably improved ourselves as a result. It seems that your positive attitude might already have rubbed off on some of our players and it is clear that some were out of favour with Hughes and relish the chance to impress you. Also good to see the few minutes cameo of Tyreke Johnson. It nicely highlighted Ralph's ethos of introducing talented youth players into the team. It would meant a lot to the lad and given him a real boost.

It isn't the right message. If you think that the right message is to hold a referendum on our membership of the EU and then rat on the decision before we have even left, then you clearly aren't a democrat. She is quite right to give him both barrels. It's a pity that she isn't a bit more blunt towards the EU. We have all these dinosaur ex-PMs and other former big political beasts coming out in favour of a second referendum, when all of them played a big part in getting us into the position we find ourselves in now. The hypocrisy from some of them in mind-blowing.

Thanks for confirming that there are many forms of Brexit. Your previous post seemed to suggest that there weren't. Perhaps you just worded your post badly. There aren't "infinite" types of Brexit. There are certainly a few variations, but you see, it is this sort of woolly opinion from you that leads to the appearance of your confusion. And you are also confused about what constitutes a hard Brexit too. It isn't just leaving the single market, it is leaving without a trade deal with the EU and trading under WTO terms. What your lot like to call "crashing out," "going over a cliff edge" etc. There is nothing much wrong with the concept of a withdrawal agreement or an implementation period, whatever they like to call it. It is the so-called "backstop" arrangement that is the problem. Read up on it.

She really is totally useless. All she had to say to them was that as things stood she could not get the backstop through Parliament and that therefore we wouldn't be signing the deal with the backstop as it was, disallowing us from leaving it unilaterally and without a termination date. Unless they amended it to be acceptable to our Parliament, we could not sign it, so they would force us into trading with them through WTO terms. Under those circumstances we would not be paying them the £39 billion. Simple.

I took one look at the panel on Question Time tonight and thought how bloody typical it was. Good old biased BBC, four Remoaners and one Brexiteer. Not worth watching. And they have the brass neck to claim impartiality.

Brexit - the clue is in the name. Britain exiting the EU. You ask whether there is more than one form of Britain exiting the EU, shooting yourself in the foot as you do so. No doubt you are one of those who want a losers' second referendum because the thick electorate didn't understand what it involved, whether we would stay in either or both of the single market, the customs union, whether the ECJ would still have any sway over our laws, cease having to pay into the EU slush fund, whether we would have some kind of FTA or leave with no deal, etc. So how can you insinuate that there can only be a Brexit or not a Brexit, and that there is nothing in between? Have you not heard politicians talking about soft brexits or hard brexits? If we are half in / half out, is that a Brexit? No, it isn't. Leaving on WTO terms is a hard or clean Brexit. Anything involving us not being able to arrange our own trade deals, having to obey ECJ rulings, paying into the slush fund or having to accept uncontrolled freedom of movement of EU citizens is a soft Brexit, or more accurately BRINO, Brexit in name only, i.e. not a proper Brexit. Does that help you imagine it?

You really are clueless believing you knew why I voted to leave. I knew exactly what I voted for and I know exactly what May has cobbled together. Don't patronise me and claim that I didn't know what I wanted. Both you and Shurlock have used this ridiculous argument that because things weren't on the ballot paper, they are invalid. Well, how long should the ballot paper have been? In a General Election, should there be each party's manifesto on the ballot paper, or just the name of the candidate and their party? But this plebiscite wasn't a whole range of policy issues, it was simply a bilateral decision, leave or remain. And it isn't a proper Brexit and I don't support it. The best description of it is BRINO, Brexit in name only. And you do your argument no good spouting the same old rubbish that the leave voters were all thick and didn't understand what they were voting for. Yes, there were many strands to it, sovereignty, immigration, economic reasons, and people had their own reasons and priorities for voting. That is their prerogative. As for the contention that the deal with the EU should have come before the vote, then that really is the barmiest thing that you have ever said. If the EU wished us to remain in, are they more likely to offer us a good deal or a bad deal?

Most of our people had no idea what they were voting for? This is a very convenient line that is trotted out by the remoaners, paraphrased as the electorate is too thick to understand what their lords and masters tell them to do. They were either voting to remain in the EU or to leave it. It was all spelled out in black and white what that meant. It meant leaving the single market and the customs union, taking back control of our money, our laws and our borders. They were also told that the economy would tank, unemployment would rise massively, house prices would tumble, there would be an emergency budget with tax rises, etc. Despite all this, they still voted by a majority to leave. The deal will never be for us all, because there will always be remoaners who for whatever reason will not accept that we should leave the EU. As they cannot be accommodated by our leaving, then tough. They are in the same position as all of us who didn't want to be in the EU all those years. We try to go for a mutually beneficial Free Trade Arrangement that suits both us and the EU. If they want to set out to punish us for daring to leave and won't treat us fairly in that deal, then we leave on WTO terms and trade with them in the same way that most of the rest of the World does. It isn't a cliff edge, or crashing out, nor will it be a disaster. Anybody who speaks in those terms is tending towards hysteria and should be ignored, as they are not being rational.

My children and grandchildren will prosper, as will the UK once we have left the sclerotic and failing EU.