Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by beninho Sun 15 Oct - 20:57

First topic message reminder :

I think bailly does look a good prospect, but he is pretty raw. The spurs pairing is probably the best in tge league as a partnership. I think mendy looks an immense left back, alonso also good, I think rose is better then bertrand though, when fit. I remember a time when full backs had to defend!

by McLaren Wed 6 Dec - 11:06

Also, not sure what percentage of the Russian team come form CSKA but if it is significant at all they won't get out the group stages.

by kwinigolfer Wed 6 Dec - 12:17

Nice to see that Shaw had a good game last night; if he can get fit, really fit, he's the best left-back in the country, tho Bertrand is having a good year.

One thing I don't see in this England team is any sense of leadership, bench included. Kane tries hard but hardly galvanises team-mates. It may be corny, but leadership is important.

by Diggers Wed 6 Dec - 18:20

Players/managers don't seem to care about captaincy these days Kwini, I agree though, you need leaders on the pitch. Dier should be the leader for me, he should definitely start and that position allows you to see how the team are playing. Never liked strikers as captains myself.

by super_realist Wed 6 Dec - 18:55

I think the captaincy is the most pointless, most over-rated position on the field. Every player should be acting like a leader. Every player should know what they have to do and shouldn't need anything from any other player on the pitch. Every player should pick any other up and motivate any player who is struggling.

All of them should be leaders, you shouldn't feel subordinate to anyone in a team.

by super_realist Wed 6 Dec - 18:56

kwinigolfer wrote:Nice to see that Shaw had a good game last night; if he can get fit, really fit, he's the best left-back in the country, tho Bertrand is having a good year.

One thing I don't see in this England team is any sense of leadership, bench included. Kane tries hard but hardly galvanises team-mates. It may be corny, but leadership is important.

Surely you mean the best English left back Kwini?

by McLaren Wed 6 Dec - 21:13

Kwini

Sadly I think Shaw was sent out to make sure his value is still reasonable come January. I have no idea what he did to Jose but it seems despite being the best left sided defender at the club he is on his way out. Personally I would rather see Jose go.

by kwinigolfer Wed 6 Dec - 22:19

super_realist wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:Nice to see that Shaw had a good game last night; if he can get fit, really fit, he's the best left-back in the country, tho Bertrand is having a good year.

One thing I don't see in this England team is any sense of leadership, bench included. Kane tries hard but hardly galvanises team-mates. It may be corny, but leadership is important.

Surely you mean the best English left back Kwini?

One or two good ones for Scotland super . . . . . .
Agree with Digs about Dier.

by Diggers Thu 7 Dec - 2:22

McLaren wrote:Kwini

Sadly I think Shaw was sent out to make sure his value is still reasonable come January. I have no idea what he did to Jose but it seems despite being the best left sided defender at the club he is on his way out. Personally I would rather see Jose go.

Apparently Shaw turned down Chelsea to go to United, some may feel Mourhino is a man who can on occasion hold a grudge. Or maybe he just thinks Shaw is shot. It's a shame if that's the case because there is no doubt the guy was a huge talent. Re England though, we have 4 or 5 very decent left backs, I'm swaying towards Delph as you'd have 3 City defenders together who all know how each other play, plus Delph provides cover as a defensive midfielder.

by pedro Thu 7 Dec - 10:23

5 English teams into the last 16 of the CL. England should now be favourite for the WC as well... Run

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 7 Dec - 19:51

Yeah, all those English scorers for Liverpool last night has got to help England....oh...

by McLaren Fri 8 Dec - 22:45

For those on here like Navy that voted for #Brexit can I ask what you think about this mornings announcement that NI will basically remain in the EU?

by super_realist Fri 8 Dec - 23:44

They haven't said that at all Mac. There's no hard border. That's it.

by **navyblueshorts** Sun 10 Dec - 3:12

McLaren wrote:For those on here like Navy that voted for #Brexit can I ask what you think about this mornings announcement that NI will basically remain in the EU?

Please tell me you're wumming...

by Diggers Sun 10 Dec - 3:35

There really isn't any final decision on the border, or even close to one, it's farcical (which fits the whole process). It's basically a sticking plaster to allow negotiations to move forward. They are still clinging onto the idea that some magical "technology" will provide a solution, despite the fact that every other border state (on other words, all EU states) has never found one and doesn't believe it's possible).
Someone made a great analogy on another topic board. Our deal will be like downgrading your Sky package and agreeing to pay 3 times as much and you are told what you have to watch.
Mind you, in a world where your chief negotiator can blatantly lie to Parliament and not even be held to account, anything goes I guess.
I used to think a few people who voted Brexit might have had good or at least understandable reason, after the debacle that has unsurprisingly followed the decision, I have reassessed that viewpoint. They are all a bunch kumquats.

by kwinigolfer Sun 10 Dec - 4:53

A good point for you today Digs in the Wolfie/Diggers duel - first year I followed footie, Chelsea won the League, followed by Wolves/Pompey/Sunderland. With the exception of Chelsea, as it should be!

by super_realist Sun 10 Dec - 5:02

Diggers wrote:There really isn't any final decision on the border, or even close to one, it's farcical (which fits the whole process). It's basically a sticking plaster to allow negotiations to move forward. They are still clinging onto the idea that some magical "technology" will provide a solution, despite the fact that every other border state (on other words, all EU states) has never found one and doesn't believe it's possible).
Someone made a great analogy on another topic board. Our deal will be like downgrading your Sky package and agreeing to pay 3 times a second much and only told what you have to watch.
Mind you, in a world where your chief negotiator can blatantly lie to Parliament and not even be held to account, anything goes I guess.
I used to think a few people who voted Brexit might have had good or at least understandable reason, after the debacle that has unsurprisingly followed the decision, I have reassessed that viewpoint. They are all a bunch kumquats.

I've never heard a Brexiteer give a good reason, much like the Scottish Independence position. I've asked and all you get is. "Eh, I want all our rules to be made in Britain". Not a single good reason.

by Diggers Sun 10 Dec - 5:59

kwinigolfer wrote:A good point for you today Digs in the Wolfie/Diggers duel - first year I followed footie, Chelsea won the League, followed by Wolves/Pompey/Sunderland. With the exception of Chelsea, as it should be!

Yep, and football showing that somethings never change...Mr Clattermole get himself sent off!
For some reason there is a picture of me in a Wolves kit when I'm 4, first ever kit. Nobody in my family knows why, should have been a Sunderland kit, no connection with Wolves at all! Bizarre."f

by McLaren Sun 10 Dec - 7:16

navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:For those on here like Navy that voted for #Brexit can I ask what you think about this mornings announcement that NI will basically remain in the EU?
:picard: Please tell me you're wumming...

Not at all, just wondering how #Brexit voters feel about the recent Irish border "agreement" and what it could mean for the final look of #Brexit Britain.

by super_realist Sun 10 Dec - 19:37

How can anyone see it as anything but positive Mac? Why would a Brexiteer even want a hard border? It seems a sensible and logical position to take. I'm surprised it was even a stumbling block in the first place.

by Diggers Sun 10 Dec - 20:13

It's only positive if there actual is a solution. There isn't. This "solution" is an utter fudge, full alignment means completely different things to so many different interested parties.
If you get to the nitty gritty, a soft border requires that we are fully in line with all EU customs requalations. Basically you are in the customs union but with no say, so yeah a soft border is great but the price for that soft border is massive and will undoubtedly impact on how border policy operates elsewhere. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the impact on freedom of movement.
I'm bored now with the phrase, "we are where we are". Where we are is up poop creek without a paddle.
Surely only an utter moron (nation of morons) would realise they have made a huge error, yet carry on plunging into an abyss, just because they'd decided to do so in the first place because of a load of lies they had been told.

by super_realist Sun 10 Dec - 20:30

Diggers I meant positive in the way that it isn't a physical border, nothing about actual Brexit which is clearly negative, even in a country which is fairly irrelevant to the economy of Britain.

by Diggers Sun 10 Dec - 20:37

Yeah sure Super, I agree, wasn't having a pop at you, just a rant about the whole process. Though quite frankly I wouldn't rule out the hard border, we are nowhere near a deal, if we end up with no deal then I'm sure a hard border will be end up being an option again.

by dynamark Sun 10 Dec - 23:17

Morning all.The Irish may be doing us all a favour by saying to the other 26 that we need to keep UK on board on the same trade terms no harm in that at all.I don't see why trade does not continue pretty much as is and all the other stuff immigration justice payments in and out crime terrorism etc can be adjusted by a new treaty.
Having said that the Irish are being a bit protective/precious and I feel they have probably had massive financial benefit via the EU over the last 20 years or so.the basic irish issue has been running for hundreds of years and shows no sign of going away.
Good news Leicester City have pulled out from buying our golf club so all happy up there.

by Diggers Sun 10 Dec - 23:32

Morning DM, do you think those continuing trade terms will be free? I don't see how that's going to be possible.
This is where we are at as I see it.
A. Hard Brexit, no deal. The IDS's and Redwoods and Goves are happy. Do we pay a divorce fee, Hammond says yes, Davis says no. They say we won't need a hard border, bit have zilch solutions to avoid one. But at least you are genuinely free to trade, in a naive, isolationist manner.
B. Soft Brexit/basically an EU puppet state. Keeps remainers sort of happy, though clearly a much better option would have been simply to remain. We will also have to contribute a fee for this proxy "membership". Means all hard Brexiteers will still be frothing for further reform and will carry on agitating for that.

I can't se any kind of middle way being found, the EU won't sanction it and every boutique off negotiations so far shows they hold all the cards...unless we hard Brexit, which even May clearly sees as a cliff-edge she doesn't want to walk off.
Happy days.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 11 Dec - 1:59

We aren't getting a favourable, bespoke trade deal. Other global, non-EU nations are already pointing out that if we're non-EU and get a specialist deal, why shouldn't they get similarly favourable terms, instead of what they currently have? In other words, as one of our idiot politicians said not so long ago, we can go whistle.

by McLaren Mon 11 Dec - 3:17

Super/Navy

The point is, that I doubt when English nationalists voted for #Brexit their idea of "sovereignty" was being held to EU rules/laws in order to keep the good Friday agreement intact and peace in Ireland. And if the nationalists aren't happy then who is?

by Diggers Mon 11 Dec - 5:33

Title race over, Citeh really did a number on Utd today, embarrassed them. I've always thought Sliva was just the tiniest bit overrated in the past but he's been absolutely fantastic this season, as good as De Bruyne really.

by kwinigolfer Mon 11 Dec - 7:05

Mourinho bequeathed the midfield to Citeh; he's spent so much time saying you can't play Martial AND Rashford, and then he goes and does exactly that, plus Lingard and Fatty Lukaku.
But agree about Silva, fantastic. Race on for second (third, fourth).

by McLaren Mon 11 Dec - 7:46

If Silva is overrated than WTF is Lukaku? He just doesn't have the touch and passing necessary to be man utd's main striker.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 11 Dec - 9:24

McLaren wrote:Super/Navy

The point is, that I doubt when English nationalists voted for #Brexit their idea of "sovereignty" was being held to EU rules/laws in order to keep the good Friday agreement intact and peace in Ireland. And if the nationalists aren't happy then who is?

The point is, they didn't have the wit to think about what they were voting for and too easily mislead by a bunch of b3llend snake oil salesmen called Farage, Johnson, Fox et al. Too busy thinking about £350m per week for the NHS and getting rid of Johnny Foreigner.

Stupidity of the highest order.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 11 Dec - 9:26

Diggers wrote:Title race over, Citeh really did a number on Utd today, embarrassed them. I've always thought Sliva was just the tiniest bit overrated in the past but he's been absolutely fantastic this season, as good as De Bruyne really.

The fact that Man Utd are second in the Premiership says a lot about the rest of the division I think. They were awful cf. Citeh today.

by pedro Mon 11 Dec - 10:11

People voted for hard Brexit. So be it.

by McLaren Mon 11 Dec - 10:59

pedro wrote:People voted for hard Brexit. So be it.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

by kwinigolfer Mon 11 Dec - 11:33

Plenty of US analogies Mac, fake news is creating some pretty dire conundrums.

by pedro Mon 11 Dec - 20:52

Didn't people vote to leave the EU? Didn't the Brexit campaign make it pretty clear what's wrong with EU, leaving no doubt of what you were voting for? Yes, there were built some castles in the sky to try to persuade some doubters. But either you leave the party or you don't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Soft Brexit is like divorcing your wife but keeping her as a mistress and maid.

I think the government/Labour/negotiators aren't respecting the Brexit vote, by trying to negotiate a soft exit. The people has spoken. Why try to protect people against themselves? You can say it's the government's job to protect the interests of the nation, but I really don't think you can use that argument when things are put out to referendums. Then why have a referendum in the first place?

I agree with most on this board that Brexit is as stupid and irrational as it can be. But I also believe you have to respect the stupid people's vote and suffer the consequences. Sorry.

by super_realist Mon 11 Dec - 21:36

You're right Pedro, but it doesn't mean the whole thing hasn't been a farce.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 11 Dec - 22:01

pedro wrote:Didn't people vote to leave the EU? Didn't the Brexit campaign make it pretty clear what's wrong with EU, leaving no doubt of what you were voting for? Yes, there were built some castles in the sky to try to persuade some doubters. But either you leave the party or you don't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Soft Brexit is like divorcing your wife but keeping her as a mistress and maid.

I think the government/Labour/negotiators aren't respecting the Brexit vote, by trying to negotiate a soft exit. The people has spoken. Why try to protect people against themselves? You can say it's the government's job to protect the interests of the nation, but I really don't think you can use that argument when things are put out to referendums. Then why have a referendum in the first place?

I agree with most on this board that Brexit is as stupid and irrational as it can be. But I also believe you have to respect the stupid people's vote and suffer the consequences. Sorry.

I tend to agree with this. We made our bed and all that. I also think that if this goes as bad as it might do, it ought to cause some major changes in our politics. The strapline is that we hold the politicians to account at the ballot box, but they don't give a xxxx as they walk off to consultancies, speeches etc etc. Too many of them are playing games, literally, with millions of peoples lives based on ideologies instead of decent evidence. It's been going on too long. If nothing else, Manifestos should be legally binding documents...

by Diggers Mon 11 Dec - 22:43

navyblueshorts wrote:
pedro wrote:Didn't people vote to leave the EU? Didn't the Brexit campaign make it pretty clear what's wrong with EU, leaving no doubt of what you were voting for? Yes, there were built some castles in the sky to try to persuade some doubters. But either you leave the party or you don't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Soft Brexit is like divorcing your wife but keeping her as a mistress and maid.

I think the government/Labour/negotiators aren't respecting the Brexit vote, by trying to negotiate a soft exit. The people has spoken. Why try to protect people against themselves? You can say it's the government's job to protect the interests of the nation, but I really don't think you can use that argument when things are put out to referendums. Then why have a referendum in the first place?

I agree with most on this board that Brexit is as stupid and irrational as it can be. But I also believe you have to respect the stupid people's vote and suffer the consequences. Sorry.
I tend to agree with this. We made our bed and all that. I also think that if this goes as bad as it might do, it ought to cause some major changes in our politics. The strapline is that we hold the politicians to account at the ballot box, but they don't give a xxxx as they walk off to consultancies, speeches etc etc. Too many of them are playing games, literally, with millions of peoples lives based on ideologies instead of decent evidence. It's been going on too long. If nothing else, Manifestos should be legally binding documents...

Unsurprisingly, I do not agree. There weren't a few castles in the sky, the Brexiteers painted a picture of heaven and said this is where you live if you vote leave. The whole thing was based on complete ignorance from pretty much everyone, from the voters to the politicians on all sides. We know a lot more now re the consequences, what is actually means, even where we might end up.
Clearly in an ideal world we would have known this before any referendum, however we didn't. That was a mistake. We have an opportunity to correct that mistake, I can't think of a single case in life where it would not make sense to review a decision after being given additional information. Has the human race really become so stupid that we sit back and say, you know what, it's a complete arse up but let's go along along with it anyway?

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 12 Dec - 0:23

Diggers wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
pedro wrote:Didn't people vote to leave the EU? Didn't the Brexit campaign make it pretty clear what's wrong with EU, leaving no doubt of what you were voting for? Yes, there were built some castles in the sky to try to persuade some doubters. But either you leave the party or you don't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Soft Brexit is like divorcing your wife but keeping her as a mistress and maid.

I think the government/Labour/negotiators aren't respecting the Brexit vote, by trying to negotiate a soft exit. The people has spoken. Why try to protect people against themselves? You can say it's the government's job to protect the interests of the nation, but I really don't think you can use that argument when things are put out to referendums. Then why have a referendum in the first place?

I agree with most on this board that Brexit is as stupid and irrational as it can be. But I also believe you have to respect the stupid people's vote and suffer the consequences. Sorry.
I tend to agree with this. We made our bed and all that. I also think that if this goes as bad as it might do, it ought to cause some major changes in our politics. The strapline is that we hold the politicians to account at the ballot box, but they don't give a xxxx as they walk off to consultancies, speeches etc etc. Too many of them are playing games, literally, with millions of peoples lives based on ideologies instead of decent evidence. It's been going on too long. If nothing else, Manifestos should be legally binding documents...

Unsurprisingly, I do not agree. There weren't a few castles in the sky, the Brexiteers painted a picture of heaven and said this is where you live if you vote leave. The whole thing was based on complete ignorance from pretty much everyone, from the voters to the politicians on all sides. We know a lot more now re the consequences, what is actually means, even where we might end up.
Clearly in an ideal world we would have known this before any referendum, however we didn't. That was a mistake. We have an opportunity to correct that mistake, I can't think of a single case in life where it would not make sense to review a decision after being given additional information. Has the human race really become so stupid that we sit back and say, you know what, it's a complete arse up but let's go along along with it anyway?

I agree I suppose, but I really do want to see the Brexit crew own their xxxx up. No sign of that though. As far as the pro-Brexit politicians were concerned, it may have relied on voter ignorance, but it was downright lies on the politicians' behalf.
I stand by the rest of my diatribe - politicians, in the main, useless winkers playing one-upmanship with each other and trashing other people's lives. Badly. T0ssers.

by Plunky Tue 12 Dec - 0:35

The "castles in the sky/heaven" thing might be true for younger voters but those above a certain age remember life in uk before EU. Seems a lot of them decided they preferred that earlier life but had absolutely no idea how difficult it would be to get out. Remember all those old episodes of "Yes Minister" that poked fun at the Common Market ? It was depicted then as being pretty corrupt with senseless rules and anybody working in Brussels was described as having their noses (and possibly trotters) in the trough. I think that's a perception that never really went away for a lot of people.

by pedro Tue 12 Dec - 0:45

There were probably many different reasons people voted as they did, and that goes both ways. We can speculate back and forth about this from now until eternity. But the bottom line is that the thing was put out for referendum. One man one vote, that‘s the basis of democracy. It’s patronizing to say some were ill informed or lied to. And if so - so what? Their vote counts as much as yours - stupid, inbred, Gooner, ph.d. or Einstein, it just doesn’t matter.

by Diggers Tue 12 Dec - 0:53

I can't see any way that to point out lies were told is patronising. If a jury made a decision based on a lie (or were only given partial information when more information became available in the future) would you insist that jury had to stick to the same decision, would you say to them, "Sorry, we don't want to patronise you by giving you all this new information which you should have been able to figure out for yourself...even though you didn't know it existed".
Of course you wouldn't, there would be a public outcry about the injustice of the original decision...and quite rightly so.

by Diggers Tue 12 Dec - 6:38

Some great ties in the Champions League. I'd be surprised if there aren't 3 English clubs in the quarters, but no easy games now.
Spurs have a bad draw in Juve, no space for them to play their attacking game. Can't really see Chelsea taking Barca over 2 legs, but still not a given.

by pedro Tue 12 Dec - 7:05

Diggers wrote:I can't see any way that to point out lies were told is patronising. If a jury made a decision based on a lie (or were only given partial information when more information became available in the future) would you insist that jury had to stick to the same decision, would you say to them, "Sorry, we don't want to patronise you by giving you all this new information which you should have been able to figure out for yourself...even though you didn't know it existed".
Of course you wouldn't, there would be a public outcry about the injustice of the original decision...and quite rightly so.

To a certain degree both sides probably “lied”, or at least manipulated with the truth. You can then debate who were worst. I’m sure your opinion on that (and mine) differs from brexit voters.
But I agree it’s also “patronising” to lie - but isn’t that what should be expected in politics? Whistle

What I just mean is that it’s patronising, or what ever you will call it, to think that you and I can look through the snake oil salesmen, but that brexit voters can’t. It’s the same as saying you are more clever than them.

by pedro Tue 12 Dec - 7:10

Diggers wrote:Some great ties in the Champions League. I'd be surprised if there aren't 3 English clubs in the quarters, but no easy games now.
Spurs have a bad draw in Juve, no space for them to play their attacking game. Can't really see Chelsea taking Barca over 2 legs, but still not a given.

Agree. Chelsea and Spurs will have a hard time but the others should go through. Porto and Sevilla weren’t impressing in the group stages and City seems unstoppable. I’m looking forward to PSG-RM as well.

by Diggers Tue 12 Dec - 7:41

pedro wrote:
Diggers wrote:I can't see any way that to point out lies were told is patronising. If a jury made a decision based on a lie (or were only given partial information when more information became available in the future) would you insist that jury had to stick to the same decision, would you say to them, "Sorry, we don't want to patronise you by giving you all this new information which you should have been able to figure out for yourself...even though you didn't know it existed".
Of course you wouldn't, there would be a public outcry about the injustice of the original decision...and quite rightly so.
To a certain degree both sides probably “lied”, or at least manipulated with the truth. You can then debate who were worst. I’m sure your opinion on that (and mine) differs from brexit voters.
But I agree it’s also “patronising” to lie - but isn’t that what should be expected in politics?
What I just mean is that it’s patronising, or what ever you will call it, to think that you and I can look through the snake oil salesmen, but that brexit voters can’t. It’s the same as saying you are more clever than them.

Although I have utter contempt for Brexit voters (collectively that is, individually I'm sure some are lovely) I don't really feel they were any more/less misinformed. I think I said earlier, nobody could predict the sheer complexity of the extraction. And we have really got started yet.
If we end up with a very soft Brexit, as appears likely, I'm pretty sure even many hard leavers would see remaining as a better option. Now we have 3 clear choices as far as I can see, and a bit of clarity on what they would mean (though far from conclusive).
I'd like a referendum with hard/soft or remain options. It won't happen, but that's what I'd like.

by SmithersJones Tue 12 Dec - 10:35

Diggers, I can tell you're as angry as I am about what's being done to this country. I know more than one person who voted to leave because they were told, and believed, that it would reduce asian/muslim immigration. Even now I don't think many people understand just how devastating even the softest of brexits would be to our economy and, perhaps more important in the longer term, our standing in the international community. I fully believe that we'll shortly lose our place on the UN Permanent Security Council. When the people 'negotiating' on our behalf admit that they don't know and don't want to know anything about what it might do to the country you have to wonder what planet they're on. And then idiots turn around and say 'oh well, we voted for it so we'll have to go through with it'. steam

It was an advisory referendum and the margin in favour of leaving was miniscule. The government should have done no more than commission the kind of research that Davis claimed they were doing until his bluff was called and he had to admit they don't exist (and somehow lying to parliament about it hasn't got him the sack!). When (not if) that demonstrated that the pound would be devastated, industry confidence would be shattered, public finances decimated and the NHS crippled it would have been very simple to demonstrate that, whatever the failings of the EU might be, leaving is suicide.

by Diggers Tue 12 Dec - 18:31

Plunky wrote:The "castles in the sky/heaven" thing might be true for younger voters but those above a certain age remember life in uk before EU. Seems a lot of them decided they preferred that earlier life but had absolutely no idea how difficult it would be to get out. Remember all those old episodes of "Yes Minister" that poked fun at the Common Market ? It was depicted then as being pretty corrupt with senseless rules and anybody working in Brussels was described as having their noses (and possibly trotters) in the trough. I think that's a perception that never really went away for a lot of people.

It was a cracking show to be fair and deserves to be remembered.
The irony is that it showed our bureaucracy, which was depicted as trying to run the country, mocking a bureaucratic body...trying to run our country!

by Diggers Tue 12 Dec - 18:35

SmithersJones wrote:Diggers, I can tell you're as angry as I am about what's being done to this country. I know more than one person who voted to leave because they were told, and believed, that it would reduce asian/muslim immigration. Even now I don't think many people understand just how devastating even the softest of brexits would be to our economy and, perhaps more important in the longer term, our standing in the international community. I fully believe that we'll shortly lose our place on the UN Permanent Security Council. When the people 'negotiating' on our behalf admit that they don't know and don't want to know anything about what it might do to the country you have to wonder what planet they're on. And then idiots turn around and say 'oh well, we voted for it so we'll have to go through with it'. It was an advisory referendum and the margin in favour of leaving was miniscule. The government should have done no more than commission the kind of research that Davis claimed they were doing until his bluff was called and he had to admit they don't exist (and somehow lying to parliament about it hasn't got him the sack!). When (not if) that demonstrated that the pound would be devastated, industry confidence would be shattered, public finances decimated and the NHS crippled it would have been very simple to demonstrate that, whatever the failings of the EU might be, leaving is suicide.

Very well put and sadly all true. I still can't quite behave Davis has got off Scott free, I know we say politicians are all liars, but we still don't usually let them get away with a blatant lie to the house.

by kwinigolfer Wed 13 Dec - 8:10

Not sure I've ever seen a worse Prem display than this Huddersfield charade. Pity their poor fans. Just awful.

by Sponsored content