Wes Tender

Is speculation about the civil unrest of the people if their democratic wishes are ignored "talking up violence"? Only in your febrile mind. I note that you didn't call to task Saint1977 and aintforever for also suggesting that there could be civil unrest.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has submitted his letter to the 1922 Committee along with several others from the ERG group. Boris has turned up at the meeting. Opinions are split between those wanting to place the vote of no confidence in May now and those wanting to wait until her humiliating defeat when the vote on the agreement is held in Parliament.

The loathsome Sarah Wollaston who is despised by her constituents for standing in the election on a manifesto stating that she was a Brexiteer and then once elected, changing to be not only a Remoaner, but an outspoken one, one of the current crop of "Tory bastards" along with Clark, Morgan, Soubry, Grieve, Allen, etc. If she had an honorable bone in her body, she would stand for re-election. And what would cause civil unrest far worse than those in 1981, would be the cancellation of Brexit either as Government policy, or via a third referendum.

So we finally get there. You accept that there actually has been a war in Europe since the European project (under whatever name) commenced. Bingo Regarding the current state of affairs, I am celebrating the events of the past 24 hours and expect May to be gone very soon. Of course, I want also what is best for this country, for me, my children and grandchildren. That will be achieved outside of the EU and we are slowly making progress in that direction, which will gather speed once May and the loathsome Robbins are gone. Hammond too, please.

Shurlock finally admits, albeit grudgingly, that the conflict in the Balkan countries was a war and presumably he also recognises that it happened geographically in Europe. Where did I deny the Cold War division of Europe, or other red herrings that are the trademark of Shurlock's ability to blur the lines of any argument that he cannot answer directly for fear of shooting himself in the foot? Where did I argue that the EU ought to have intervened in the conflict, even though there was significant genocide taking place right on their doorstep? No, that's right, I didn't express any opinion on that or anything else that Shurlock wants to infer. And then to boot, there is the usual childish insult that signals that he is being bested and unable to respond with clarity to the questions aimed at him.

It's brilliant news. Please fall on your sword, May. You are damaged beyond repair as a Party leader and PM. Your credibility is zero.

Typical of tour usual idiotic obfuscation and waffle. You totally ignore answering my questions as to whether the conflict in the Balkans constituted a war, and whether those countries were geographically part of Europe. Had you done so honestly, then of course you would be affirming that there had indeed been a war in Europe since the formation of the EEC/EU, so that the claim that peace had been preserved in Europe as a result of the EEC/EU was flawed.

Did I suggest that Yugoslavia or the former member states of it were part of the EU when war broke out there? No, I didn't. Were they part of Europe geographically at the time and still remain part of Europe now? Yes. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the conflict be classified as a war? Then unless your powers of reasoning are not yet fully wakened this morning, there actually was a war in Europe that took place after the formation of the EEC/EU, wasn't there? Trying to restrict that peace in Europe to Germany, the UK, France and Italy is frankly pathetic, but typical of the type of stilted argument you would advance.

If you really wish to airbrush the war in the Balkan states post the break up of the former Yugoslavia from history, then it is patently you who have a poor grasp of European history.

Ah, so no wars in Europe only meant wars between Germany, France, the UK and Italy, Why didn't he say so? No wars in Europe meant wars only between the earliest EU member states, nothing to do with non-EU members in Europe at the time. Hail peace in Europe as a result of the EU!

Apart from the titchy little skirmish in the Balkans following the break up of the old Yugoslavia. Not really worthy of consideration in this context, is it?

My worst case scenario is that May remains as PM of the Party I support. She has to be the worst PM we have had in modern times

Your prejudices are well known too. So?

No. Whereas I accept that some articles might influence my overall opinion of their authors, I am old enough and well rounded enough to accept that it is shallow to dismiss every opinion from somebody based on an appraisal of their opinions on a narrow range of subjects. Just because I wouldn't feel it worthwhile listening to Ken Livingstone's political views, doesn't mean that I would dismiss his views on how to keep newts. Politics as a subject covers a very diverse range of policy areas, so it is perfectly feasible to agree with a politician's views on one subject and to vehemently disagree on another, isn't it?

Agreed that your drivel is becoming tiresome. *yawn* What arrogance professing to know what everybody voted for in the General Election. Pray tell us oh wise one, what percentage voted on the basis of whether they wanted us to leave the EU, or to stay in it? What percentage voted along historical party lines, the colour of the rosette the donkey was wearing metaphor? What percentage voted on the economy, the NHS, Defence, Nationalisation, Education, etc. At least the referendum offered a binary choice, so it was clear that a majority who voted wished to leave the EU. Granted there were many numerous reasons for wanting to do so, just as there were many reasons some wished to stay. But it is widely accepted that the remoaners failed to understand the reasons why they lost the vote, and you stand as a prime example of somebody who hasn't a clue still now as to why the leave vote still stands firm, despite the worst efforts of our useless PM to mess up any advantages that would accrue from leaving.

So you're that shallow that if you don't agree with one thing that somebody says, then you'll disagree with everything else he says?

You're also clueless, little fella if you believe that. I am not fantasing about violence by suggesting that Shurlock (the poster you are reticent to name) would risk facing an assault if he were to hurl the sort of patronising and infantile insults in a conversation with somebody in a pub that he does on here. And since when were you appointed a moderator? Mind your own business, VD.

You really have little clue about what the electorate voted for in the General Election. You are also clueless, little fella, calling the Lancaster House speech hardline. The majority vote in the referendum was for what was encapsulated in the Lancaster House speech,

Yes, exactly that one. Where does it say that I personally threatened to rearrange his face. That's right, it didn't. I have responded previously to this lie that Shurlock perpetuates by stating that I am not a violent person. But I don't retract the opinion that if Shurlock were to use the sort of patronising and infantile name-calling in his local pub that he employs on here, then I have no doubt that somebody would punch his lights out. Is it now clear that it is not me threatening it, or is your mind too feeble to comprehend simple English, or too Mutt and Jeff to hear?

Or you might be patronised to death by Shurlock, who by the way will not be able to find one single threat by me to smash anybody's face in. Come on, Shurlock, put up or shut up.

Problems with your comprehension? He didn't say that he didn't want a Brexit deal, did he? Read it again.

Whereas of course Shurlock wouldn't dream of indulging in churlish insults, would he?

If we're still where we are at the New Year, get rid of Hughes. But we're not going to turn it around under him. I don't know what exactly is wrong, whether the players' fitness regime under him isn't good enough, whether he isn't capable of inspiring his players, or whether he is naive tactically. Maybe all three. With Cardiff and Newcastle winning at home, and Huddersfield picking up a point too, the trapdoor is opening under our feet. One of the few positives is that Gabbiadini had a good game and needs a run now to get in the groove. Hopefully the Ings injury isn't too serious, as he will be a big loss. As usual we still aren't sure of what our best defence is, change it constantly and then wonder why it is brittle. God knows when or if we will see Bednarek or Vestergaard again and whatever became of Romeu? Watford bring on their bulk and muscle and have their chins up having equalised, but it was coming from the time Hughes took off Armstrong and didn't replace him with either some muscle in midfield, or in the heart of the defence. Watford on balance were the better team overall, and it looked as if they had a decent shout for a penalty. We appeared to have scored a perfectly valid second goal, but 10 minutes later the linesman put up his flag and it was disallowed. It suggests that the officials might have had a mare. I hadn't heard of this ref before and can only assume we got him from some pub league. Please can we have VAR to assist their feeble brains and failing eyesight? I suppose that we should be grateful that with the head of steam that Watford had in the last 20 minutes, that they didn't score a winner off Decoure's arm. The Club are advertising half season tickets for sale. I'm not sure whether there are many masochists out there who are prepared to lay out their hard earned dosh to watch this dross and to walk away from the stadium each home match without having witnessed any wins all season.

He speaks highly of you. OK, so you would rather have lightweights in midfield instead who are easy to dispossess. Fair enough.

Hughes had earned his opportunity to manage us from the start of this season, because of the job he had done in keeping us up when nearly everybody thought that we were as good as down already when he took over. Sadly the time has probably arrived when any sensible person will have concluded that the run of results achieved this season, and the circumstances under which they have been achieved, doesn't warrant him being allowed to continue as manager. He had excuses at the end of last season, an unfamiliar team, morale low, not much time to change things around, and he did manage to ensure our survival against all the odds. However, he has had a full Summer to buy in players and a full pre-season to get them bedded in and to assess their strengths and weaknesses, their best playing positions and character traits. And yet here we are 11 matches into the season having only one win and a tally of just 7 points. We cannot wait as late as we did last season in getting rid of the last clown; we need to do it much earlier this season, or we won't get away with it again. A loss against free scoring City is no disgrace, and they are already opening up a gap at the top of the table with their goal difference. But it isn't as if we have been playing many of the top six clubs, and should have been capable of winning several of the matches, had we been good enough. Even the clown and Puel managed to prevent City from getting all three points until the last minute of injury time, (or even beyond it). Hughes' team and the useless Hoedt managed to give them the lead in a matter of minutes and we were already being humiliated by half time. Adkins's newly promoted team gave them a real game, Pochettino's team always looked capable of winning against anybody on their day, as did Koeman's. Puel's teams were boring, but generally well set-up. Pellegrino's were even more boring and mostly set-up not to lose rather than to win. Hughes' team is lacking any bite up top and weak in defence. It is hard to apportion the blame for our decline correctly. Undoubtedly much needs to go onto Reeds shoulders, as the wheels have fallen off his master plan for finding previously undiscovered stars, who will lift the team for a season or two, be sold for mega-bucks and then be replaced with another in the same mould. We have sold fantastic players these last two or three years and replaced them with costly dross, some not even deemed good enough to start matches. But much of the blame must surely be laid on Hughes' shoulders. Not only does he not know his best team, but he often doesn't even play the strongest team tactically to gain the best chance of points against the different opposition we face match by match. Neither does the team appear to be fully fit, or motivated, lacking confidence, which shows in the inability of our strikers to score goals and this is making us a commentators' joke. Has anybody found out why Romeu wasn't playing today? If we were to stand a chance against City, we needed 5 at the back, and all three of Hobjberg, Lemina and Romeu in the midfield. As soon as I saw the team, I wondered why we would risk facing the pace and strength of City with a weak midfield and only four defenders. But really it doesn't matter much who he picks if the strikers can't put the ball in the net. It had looked as if the defence was starting to settle during the past couple of matches, but Hughes' inability to pick a team to deprive City of possession in midfield will have given the defence a massive jolt to their confidence, if they actually had much to begin with. Frankly as far as football is concerned, I would rather watch Bournemouth at the moment, although somehow we did manage to look better than them the other day.