blandy

It's like this - they oppose the Deal Theresa May is going to do, and they oppose a No Deal Brexit, so they want to hold a referendum allowing people to choose between the May Deal and No deal - two things they oppose. The one thing the Party almost all want - no Brexit - they don't want to put on the referendum. Oh, and they want an election, so their coherent approach* can be implemented. *not coherent at all. Utterly useless twunts,

Yeah, utterly unlistenable for me too. I’ve got a reasonable overlap in taste with Simon, but that....jeez ?

Yes. It’s the whole thing of him having a plan A but no plan B, encapsulated. He had a go his way. It didn’t work. There’s no feasible second method for him. It’s done, his race is ran. Anything else this season is just wasted time and money. He’s a good human, he did the best he could, but things have started going backwards.

It's not going to happen. It's been like that from the first day, really (before he was appointed, also). It's not going to change. As you say, it's in his DNA to be defensive. And even if he somehow morphed from a caterpillar to a butterfly, the coaches are not (on the evidence before us) capable of coaching a more creative, attacking style.

Get help. @lapal_fan has got out of his straightjacket again and is in the computer room.

DHUTWU

They remain some significant distance detached from reality.

I saw one of the alien crew from that vessel, there's a nest of them around the Albion ground

I dunno what Chiles said - I've heard nothing. Anyway, because I'm not a party supporter the way I look at it is IDGAF about what any party looks like, I am more bothered about what happens to the country. To me, Tories are horribly divided and the media has said so for years. Ditto Labour. Neither have a good look. Neither is doing anything remotely positive to stop things getting worse. It'll carry on being like that unless they change, the parties change. They won't they're getting more fractious, both of them. If Labour was to take the initiative, instead of hiding, and if they were to say, "yes, the tories are divided, we're divided, the country is divided, the Union (UK nations) is divided - we all have to recognise this and work across party and Parliament lines to reconcile what's best for the UK as a whole, not what's best for the tory party, or Labour, or England, then I think the one thing that the majority want, which is some genuine leadership and unentrenched thinking and action could be instigated by Labour, and could benefit them and turn them from Jeremy's 1970s throwback pro Russian, anti-semitic, bumblers (in many people's eyes) into "actually, at least they're acting like grown ups, trying to sort things out, trying to lead in everyone's interests, not Boris/Theresa/Eileen's nutters.

I’ve got some news for you.... Most Labour Party members are against Brexit. Most Labour MPs are against Brexit. Labour’s leader is pro Brexit, More Labour constituencies were pro Brexit, though there’s evidence that may no longer be the case. Momentum is pro Corbyn, the MPs are mostly, against, or sullenly tolerant only, of Corbyn. Significant chunks of Labour’s union support is against Brexit. There are campaigns by some MPs to unseat other MPs, and by some CLPs to deselect their MPs. whatever the merits of any side of any of those different issues, Labour is horribly divided already. A competent Leader of Labour, now, would be all over the press and TV, calling out the hapless May, her humiliation in Europe her potty right wingers and calling for her to immediately set up a joint cross party parliamentary Brexit team, with the aim of rescuing the country from her incompetence. He should be, for example, playing the “look like a PM” card, calling for parliament, including Scotland, Wales, NI parliaments to jointly address the short term crisis the tories have led us into. Given the lamentable inability of the tories to remotely settle amongst themselves, let alone with the EU, what they want from Brexit, this joint team should be tasked with, in the interests of protecting British jobs, the Union...etc, recommending, to the whole of Parliament the best option from the following list. 1. Norway style free trade and customs union version. Off the shelf, tweakable and to an extent the closest thing to a “jobs first” Brexit. 2. Canada style trade agreement, also tweakable. 3. Hard Brexit. Then, do this 4. In the light of the illegality of the Leave campaigns actions, whether the ref should be deemed invalid and a new ref held, choosing between parliaments chosen pick from the 3 options, or remaining. instead of Catweazle hiding in his shed, watching the tories clusterpork the country, and dreaming of his imaginary Venezuelan idyll, he should be looking like the Statesman, like a pm in waiting, like the solution the nation needs. sorry, it’s 5 am. I’m clearly hallucinating.

I don't follow or watch or whatever much BBC news, but I put it on last night and also the Newsnight after, and thought it was the opposite of what you say. It seemed balanced and fair minded, told the story, didn't "take sides". The type of stuff you say about how she ended up (through utter idiocy) where she is - you're never going to get that on the BBC. They don't say "Corbyn is incompetent"(and where the eff is he on all this, by the way? - hiding in his **** shed again) or "Johnson is a power hungry idiot" or "May is an immigration obsessed, small minded twerp". They probably should, in my dream world, perhaps, but they don't.

No, clearly you don’t. Perhaps my point was unclear. Let me put it differently. The leaders of Iran and Turkey are words removed. Idgaf about either of them, in terms of affecting my life. Jeremy Corbyn is a hypocrit. He went on Iran TV for money and did not use his appearances on it to condemn anti-Semitic garbage, even when it was voiced to him directly on his programme....etc. They used him, he let himself be used He’s an idiot. Anyway, now the other lot - The U.K. Tory party and government are also hypocrites and idiots. They voted against some EU parliament motion that would have biffed Hungary for being all nasty like. They did it so they could get something in return as Bicks posted in their (baby eating) thread. People I will never support: the tories, Corbyn labour, Orban, Iran’s current leader.

I'm with magnkarl on this one. Idgaf about Viktor Orban. The bloke's a word removed, in another land. The Labour party however, if it wasn't led and influeneced by such a shower of bells at the moment could (and hopefully would) provide a means to get rid of the most incompetent useless government ever in the place I live and stop Brexit while it is at it . I'd much rather that happened than whatever stupidity Orban is up to. The UK Gov't supporting a far right Hungary leader on a EU parliament vote was (IMO) tactical regarding Brexit. "I scratch your back, you scratch mine".

It means you're not a comedy geordie stereotype and your taste in breakfast meals is less sophisticated than it might be. Shakshouka is yum. lager for brekky less so (a nice sauvignon is much better ?)

This is another thing where the Brexit people have been masssively hypocritical - wanting a "Canada plus" type deal, in which the ultimate arbiter of disputes is an unelected, non-national, "Corporate court". With even less answerability or democratic control and oversight than is the case with the ECJ. "We can't have foreigners dictating what we do" - "Lets have a Canada++ type deal, where a non-UK court has primacy" the absolute prongs.

Wasn't it initially part of Belgium that blocked it , and then the weight of the public uproar meant it never got restarted, and then, like you sa,y Trump wanted to enworsen it even more, so it has basically been canned.

Thanks . That was exactly my point. The single market wouldn't work if we did individual deals.

Yes, this is true. FI Italy (hypothetically) could do something that would give them a leg up and knock back the others, they'd not be able to. But equally, if the next week Germany wanted to do a deal which would knock back Italy, then they'd not be able to - so no one can individually gain at the expense of everyone else - they all get protected, and on top of that, by persuading others they all get, ultimately a stronger hand. It's like now with the brexit thing - Ireland desperately wants no border with the UK. All the other EU nations are firmly supporting them, even though it doesn't really benefit, say Hungary, if there's a border or not. Stronger together.

Yeah, TTIP was an abomination and (due to people power) got canned by the EU. It was a close run thing, but "we" (people) won. Which is not the case with the UK and say Fracking, or trade deals we might have done or do in the future. TTIP was a massive reason for me to see the flaws with the EU, the secrecy, the lobbyists, the sneaky dealings...and it got stopped. All those problems are even more apparent in the UK.

I think the opposite. And in a twisted way, it's part of the problem. Albert, Jack, Elmo Connor, even to a degree Jimmy Danger all make a real effort to retrieve the ball, to fight for it, track players, cover full-backs etc. And they're told to by Bruce. Which is all commendable.... ...but, in selecting (say) a wide player(s) who put in a defensive shift, rather than perhaps more skilled attacking wide players, we lose something going forward. Partly he does it because (IMO) Taylor's poor and Axel's learning the game. But in reducing attacking options to improve defensive cover, he weakens our forward play.

This implication that we're obliged to follow rules, as a member of a (in this case) Union being potentially a bad thing, or a loss of sovereignty, is possibly valid, to a degree. It's also true that in the world of aviation, for example, as it was just mentioned, we have to follow the rules of the ICAO. As a member of NATO we have to follow rules on how much we spend on defence and on various other matters. We have to follow the Geneva convention. We have to follow WTO rules.... In essence, any modern nation benefits from membership of various legal and collective groups for trade, for co-operation, for defence, for employment, for import and export and... It may be that a nation might not always, wholeheartedly want to adopt the "club" rules, and then either their complaints get adapted to, or they put up with it for the wider benefit they gain. It's not some kind of horror show, it's not anything to fear or rail against. It's beneficial, and the theoretical loss of some mythical "sovereignty" because the EU or NATO or ICAO requires plugs to be fused, or mobile phones to work abroad at reasonable fees... These Brexit campaign people sowed an "idea" that we are all being shafted, and it's bollex. Get to an yspecifics and all they can do is bluster generalities. An argument built on falsehoods and sand. (And I don't much like the EU).

The EU is stopping it, through the single market which the UK played a big part in setting up. Whether you or I like that or not is one thing, but from before the vote the UK knew we could not do individual deals like the one you mention, though David Davis lied about it and falsely said we could. "We" decided to jump anyway. We could stay in the single market and have the trade and commerce benefits, still, and be like Norway (which is not in the EU) if the tories wanted, but they've taken it upon thermselves to decide not to do that, because ...idiocy/racism/whatever... Italy has decided to be and stay in the EU and benefit from the enhanced trading opportunities a collective trade negotiating position entails. If they wanted to do individual deals of the type you mention, then they could leave, too. But they don't want to, because they'd be worse off, and it wouldn't be "beneficial" for them as a member state. No one, not even the Brexit campaigners are claiming, now, that trade wise the UK will be better off leaving, as was pointed out on the previous page..

I think I'm missing your point. The EU cannot stop Britain trading with anyone. What the members of the EU (including the UK) decided was that we'd all take away all the trade tariffs, customs charges, different rule sets and standards we all used to have, and have a zero tariff, common set of standards, free market between us all. It's been a massive success. Because we are all one big market, the EU countries, including the UK sensibly agreed that we, together would negotiate any deals with other nations or groups of nations - as a big powerful block of countries we have more clout and can get better terms for us all. The counter side to that is that no single country can negotiate a special deal between itself and any non-EU country. But we can trade with anyone else under standard WTO terms (which are not as good as EU terms). From a trade perspective (whatever the other arguments about the EU) we're miles better off inside than outside. Humungously so.