Enda

I'd call it 4-1-4-1. Yes Hutton at left back. Axel - Chester - Jedi - Hutton Iceland Elmo - McGinn - Grealish - Green Codger

McGinn lively. Axel at RB, the Australian ManBeard partnering Chester. We've two recognised right-backs on the pitch, neither of whom are playing RB.

In the shirt, on the YouTubes.

It said a lot when he switched his allegiance from Ireland U-21 to England U-21, i.e. he'll be off when a nicer offer comes around. Good luck, Jack.

Ye first applied to join the EC three years after the Treaty of Rome took effect. You saw the benefits and wanted in immediately.

Right so.

Its companies also love unbroken supply chains and access to the single market. Do not invest in the FTSE if you think there's going to be a crash.

No... because the UK decided not to join the Eurozone or the ESM, so the ECB/EU couldn't do much with your banks.

That's fair. What I meant by "worse off" wasn't just economic though. You can worse off if they don't let you go to Villa Park, even if it saves you money. (TBF we'd all be better off not watching Villa this year, but that's another point.)

Okay, we're on different sides, so help me see things from your view. Can you give me your best example on an EU decision or regulation that the UK were outvoted on, and that affects your life?

Absolutely. If the UK concludes that the benefits of the EU (the single market, maximum bargaining power on trade deals from a customs union, cost savings from centralizing the likes of medical trials etc etc etc) do not exceed the costs (you lot have been outvoted on issues) then nobody will force you to stay. Save you the click: you're not outvoted much. Official EU voting records* show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix. In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%. 6

It's set by Merkel and May and Macron (and Varadkar and everyone else) sitting around every six months and banging their fists on the table. Member-states hold vetoes on "sensitive" areas like taxes and abortion. Everything else e.g. environmental policy is done by Qualified Majority Voting, i.e. a few countries clubbing together can veto reforms. Little Ireland, for an obvious example, should not be able to hold back the other 500 million people if there's a consensus on environmental policy. If Ireland is sufficiently unhappy with the direction, they should leave.

One more thing. You can basically split the EU into three parts. The Commission. This is the civil service. Yes, they're unelected bureaucrats (except the head of the civil service, who is elected.) Make proposals and do the nitty gritty implementation stuff, like every civil service. By number of people employed, the UK civil service is about ten times bigger than the EU's. The Parliament. All elected. Just like MPs. Passes legislation. Elects head of the civil service. The Council. The MPs of every country in the EU (or Ministers for Agriculture if they're talking cows, etc). All elected representatives. They set the agenda and get the ball rolling. Can we stop with the "just a bunch of bureaucrats" schtick please?

Hi there. I'm European; a proud Irish nationalist, and I will always be "Irish first", but I'm very supportive of the EU project overall. You're leaving our union. As you're entitled to do. Sorry to see you go, but best of luck. I have just one question for you: call it "blackmail" if you must, but why on earth do you think I'd do anything but back the EU (unelected bureaucrats or otherwise) 100% in our negotiations with you?

It's not apparent to me that the EU would let the UK keep its current deal. At present, the UK's special rebate is worth about 5 billion pounds a year. You've had a special deal, and caused a lot of fuss. Threatened ("we hold all the cards") and distracted the entire EU project for a couple of years. Ireland would certain accept that deal because of our cousins n Northern Ireland, and don't want them to suffer. But the French? Greeks? Croats? The amount of goodwill needed to let it all slide would be enormous. It would be very "progressive" of the EU to let you have a better deal than every other member state.

Exactly what people have been saying for two years now.

Manchester Orchestra's Black Mile to the Surface.

Traveling salesman knocks on a door. Five year-old boy answers drinking a scotch and smoking a cigar. Traveling salesman asks him, "Excuse me, little boy, are your parents home?" Kids sips his scotch and says, "What the f*ck do you think?"

A man at a funeral goes up to the widow and whispers "....plethora". Crying, she grabs his arm in thanks, "It means a lot."

Dunno why you think I disagree with any of that.

Go on then, put your money where you mouth is. Betfair give us 7/2 for promotion, or about a 1-in-4 chance. Same website gives Brentford 14/1.

With two matches in such a short space of time, and in fairness us still knocking on the door of the play-offs, I don't think there's an absolutely urgent need to replace Bruce. This conversation would be much tempered if Glen Whelan cleared that ball at the edge of the box. Should we replace him? 90% yes. Could he still do enough to get us to the playoffs this season? 70% yes If Bruce doesn't get four points from the next two games, I think he should go. If he gets six points from the next two games, then maybe we should still replace him and get someone new in for January. But the advantage of getting someone in this week? Pretty minimal, I think.

I'm the only one who thinks he should get these two next games then?

We were in 17th when RDM got sacked if I recall correctly.