Wes Tender

You're far better at playing the role of the arrogant, insufferable, patronising tw*t. If there is a second/third referendum, it will have to be between May's deal or no deal, as the decision to leave has already been made in the first/second referendum. I thought that somebody of your supposed intellect would have realised that. No deal is the default position on 29th March. Extending the Article 50 period requires a change of law, a statutory instrument. It can't be achieved by just a simple vote. The majority of MPs in the House represent Leave voting constituencies who would take a keen interest in how their MPs vote to betray their wishes in the referendum. It depends on how many would like to be out of a job come the next election.

Easiest not to get out of bed in the morning too. It isn't a matter of what is easiest, but of doing what is democratic. You might be happy to ignore the democratic will of the electorate in the largest vote for anything in our political history, but the repercussions for our system of democracy would receive a major blow, resulting quite possibly in severe civil unrest and distrust in our politicians for year to come. Yes, May is going down, whether by a vote of no confidence in Parliament or by her own Party, which is the more likely scenario. Postponing the meaningful vote on her so-called deal has put things in limbo temporarily. Although her bargaining position would have been strengthened with the EU from the evidence of the dissent to the backstop in Parliament, it is debatable whether her humiliation was greater from chickening out of holding the vote, or of postponing it. In any even, the existing situation has put the vote of no confidence from her Party on temporary hold, as the Leavers aren't against the clock ticking down towards the 29th March next year, when the default position of WTO terms clicks in. If Labour were to put forward a motion of no confidence in her, they would not achieve a majority, as the DUP and the Conservatives would unite against it. May is unlikely to get the EU to amend the backstop deal to remove the clauses that do not time limit it, or allow us to leave it unilaterally. The crunch comes for her if she mistakenly believes in her bone-headiness that Parliament would vote the deal through with the additional feeble amendments the EU might offer. That is when she will be toast and the Conservatives will attempt to elect another leader and go from there

It's a bit too early to claim that the EU have played a blinder. They are playing high stakes poker on us not leaving on WTO terms, which they certainly don't want, so it could end up with them having shot themselves in the foot. Unless May is unseated as PM, the "meaningful vote" on her so-called deal might drag on until 21st January, or some say even later, and then there will be very little time for other options. The more May kicks the can down the road, the less time there is for other options to be put in place. Extending the Article 50 period, preparing another referendum, or negotiating other alternative deals are all fraught with problems and repercussions, lack of time being one of the major ones.

As you say, the more that they repeated it, the more that the message got across. This contrasts with the project fear campaign, where the more they predicted an apocalyptic disaster from a vote to leave, the more the electorate chose to be sceptical. They still haven't learned their lesson and have become even more shrill now. A Berlin style airlift is going to be needed for vital goods, (the planes that aren't going to be grounded,that is), the whole of Kent a giant lorry park, bodies unburied, Mars Bars priced out of reach of the ordinary person, we're doomed.

Thank God that the board got rid of Hughes early enough for Hasenhuttl to have enough time to turn things around. Now he knows exactly what he needs to do. The defence needs urgent attention. Targett and Vestergaard should not feature again in a hurry. At least when Bertrand is back and Cedric plays, the full backs are generally better. But there were careless mistakes all over the pitch today. The mistake by Vestergaard was unforgivable. I didn't think Austin did badly, although he didn't get the service. But for the mistake that gifted them the goal, this match was headed to a nil-nil borefest. As it is, we have passed up yet another opportunity to take points away from a direct rival of ours, as we have done all season so far. The only consolation is that we have the chance to play them all again this season, and we really do need to win all of those matches to redress the balance. The other plus is that apart from Hasenhuttl having the chance to improve the players we have tactically and mentally, he will be able to address our shortcomings in the January transfer window.

Read this and you will have some fitting explanations as what motivates the likes of Shurlock and Verbal to insult anybody who disagrees with them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-beast/201611/the-psychology-insults I'm afraid that it is something he is unable to control, so he deserves our pity and our sympathy.

I agree, but the forum's most ardent and vocal Remoaners have difficulty in understanding such concepts as conditionality. To them, that was a lie, but the all the project fear guff that would come into immediate effect just for us daring to vote to leave the EU was all the gospel truth, honest gov. Anyway, it is all academic now, that was over two and a half years ago and there is nothing that can be done about it now. It is useless calling for a second referendum (this time for the people) on the basis that the electorate was mislead by the Leave campaign, as the remain campaign was guilty of untruths too. And now they're at it again, even more desperately trying to frighten us with project fear Mk11.

I'm pleased that you accept your shortcomings when in comes to understand simple English. We're making progress. Now calm down and let your blood pressure subside a bit. You're coming across a bit gammon.

"Her performance on the Today program last week was a depressingly awful." A depressingly awful what?

Our Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt openly advocated violence! At least for some on this forum who have difficulty in understanding the English language he did. For them one only has to express an opinion that the result of an action might precipitate a violent reaction for that to mean that the holder of that opinion is actually advocating violence and intending to be a part of it themselves. Asked if the scenes of rioters on the streets of Paris and other French towns could be repeated in Britain, Mr Hunt warned: “If we were, for example, to have another referendum overturn the results of the first referendum — let’s say the results were exactly reversed so that this time it was 48 per cent Leave, 52 per cent Remain. You’d have 48 per cent of the country who had voted to Leave twice. They would be incredibly angry and I wouldn’t rule out real social instability in this country

Right on the nail about May. I fail to find any redeeming features in her. The Party should have ditched her following her totally incompetent and inept election campaign, where she failed to increase her majority against the most left wing leader of the Labour Party. But we won't have to wait long now for her to be gone.

Will everybody be conscripted then?

So instead of taking the information from somebody who catalogues tens of thousands of highly successful SMEs, entrepreneurs and pioneering innovation trends across the UK as his business, let's instead take the opinion of Shurlock that the bloke must be talking rubbish. No doubt he will contact him to insult his intelligence and call him some childish names. Any good news about business since we voted to leave the EU is bad news for you remoaners, isn't it? What a shame that employment levels have risen so much, that there hasn't been the predicted recession, the emergency budget, falls in house prices and inward investment that would be the immediate consequence of a vote to leave. Exports are healthy, plus as this guy says, SME are doing well. As for Verbal, is the WTO falling apart as fast as the EU? And where did I say that we could walk away without paying anything to the EU? That depends on what sort of trade arrangement we enter into with them, as there is different legal interpretation of our obligations depending on the circumstances. I suspect that finer legal minds than his have pored over this. The WTO is falling apart on the one hand, but would be imposing sanctions on us the next. Meanwhile the clock is taking towards our departure with no deal and the default WTO option.

Are they comparing figures in £s with figures in $s? As far as I can see, comparisons are between figures in the same currency throughout. Figures provided in Dollars are probably because their source of supply was from the countries mentioned, like Kazakhstan, so for a direct comparison the figures from Austria were in dollars too. The relationship between the amounts wouldn't alter if they were converted to Euros or Pounds.

As we head ever closer to the default WTO trade position with the EU if we don't arrange a trade deal with them, I thought it timely to lift some of the gloom that you remoaners must be feeling increasingly as we edge ever closer to the 29th March 2019. https://brexitcentral.com/uks-unnoticed-export-boom-underlines-no-deal-brexit-nothing-fear/ As the author asks, how is it that hardly none of this tremendously good news has managed to penetrate the major media outlets like the BBC, Sky, The FT, Economist, or the new Daily Mail? Perhaps the question is rhetorical and he already knows the reasons from his time at Radio 4, The European and the FT. I look forward to Tuesday and the defeat of May's efforts to tie us into the EU as a vassal colony via her Hotel California Brexit.

I'm not struggling at all. It seems to be you, UJ and Verbal who are the ones struggling to comprehend the English language. I don't see where I responded to your request for my opinion on David Davis. No doubt you will be happy to show me. I tire of your childish mind games, so it is pointless responding to your infantile jibes.

You really do yourself no favours. Is English your second language perhaps? It wasn't his opinion of what should happen. It was what could or might happen.

Oh, do grow up

We hit the post three times and it took a couple of world class saves from Loris to prevent other goal scoring chances. We had more shots than Spurs, although slightly fewer were on target. We were missing key players which weakened both our defence and our midfield. In my opinion Kelvin got it wrong tactically too. I think we should have played three at the back with Romeu in front instead of Davis. When we had Cedric playing LB with Valerie on the right, it would have been better than having Targett on the left, where he was hung out to dry by Trippier all evening. If one player would have made a difference, it would have Lemina had he been available. OK, Spurs were much the better team, but it was inevitable that the team we played and the formation we played would see an easy win for them, especially when we gifted them three soft goals like that.

Where did I say that I agreed with anybody who claimed that the "exact same benefits" were available on leaving the EU? Leaving the EU gives us better benefits than remaining in. It is only charlatans like the idiot Starmer who could possibly believe that he could hoodwink the electorate by making Labour's support for Brexit dependent on us achieving the exact same benefits as we enjoy as members. We might lose some trade with the EU, but can replace it with trade deals with the faster developing rest of the World. But the other benefits of returning to being an independent sovereign nation once more far outweigh any small short term trade downside, don't they?

My position has been constant throughout. I would prefer a FTA with the EU, but if an acceptable deal was not forthcoming, I would be perfectly happy leaving under WTO terms.

Are you talking about continued membership of the EU? It seems to fit in very well with what we were sold by Grocer Heath and what it has since turned out to be.

I'll just have to have a reasoned guess at both your mental and actual ages based on the immaturity you show in your posts. Count me in with all the other "zealots" who voted by a majority to leave the EU in the biggest plebiscite ever undertaken in our history and who will feel betrayed and angry if the decision was overturned by our elected government and MPs. As for the claptrap that you have spouted in the rest of your post, it really is beneath contempt.

I'll ignore the puerility of the reply and the poor use of English and treat it on its dubious merits. It doesn't say that you would do it, does it? Unless you are suggesting that the "someone" would be you? Is that what you would be suggesting?

Former Tory minister Tim Loughton's analogy of The vicar's daughter's Brexit deal: “It is like buying a house that you have only seen from the outside. You hand over the full asking price at the outset, upfront. You sign all the legal transaction documents without even agreeing on the fixtures, fittings and completion date, or indeed knowing whether the immigration status of your family allows you to live there. Only after that do you commission a survey, the results of which you do not share with your family despite eventually finding out that the neighbours have an unlimited right of way across your garden and unfettered access to your garden pond - and you have no indication of when you will be able to move in. Who in their right mind would agree to such a deal on buying a house, let alone on such an important issue as the future constitutional basis of our whole country?”