Dr. Gonzo

So from Macron on Brexit: "Britain must understand that our interest in the medium to long term is to have clear rules. So if Britain wants to trade with Europe it has to choose a model, such as the Swiss, Norwegian or Canadian [I'm assuming grammar wasn't translated]. We have to accept that there are losses. But it's the British who will lose the most. You cannot enjoy the rights in Europe if you are not a member - otherwise it will fall apart. Europe is what has enabled us since 1945, in an unprecedented way, to preserve peace, security, freedom and prosperity in our continent. The British are making a serious mistake over the long term. Boris Johnson enjoys giving flamboyant speeches but has no strategic vision; the turmoil he created the day after Brexit proves it. Nigel Farage and Mr. Johnson are responsible for this crime: they sailed the ship into battle and jumped overboard at the moment of crisis. Theresa May has handled it but what has been happening since then? On the geopolitical level as well as on the financial, realignment and submission to the US. What is going to happen is not "taking back control": it's servitude." So aside from his pretty scathing comments on Farage and Johnson (all accurate btw) - he's also mentioned 3 models where British trade with the EU may fit in in the future. Which of the 3 models do you lot prefer? Norway's model (EEA): fairly free access to single market for businesses, but exceptions for farming, fishing (separate zones) and food imports (lets say, allowing import duties on French cheese to favour Norway's farmers). Free movement of people (unlike the UK, Norway is in the Schengen border area), EU citizens have the same access to health care as locals, etc. No requirements to join the Euro. New EU regulations are added to Norweigian law pretty much automatically - and unlike EU members there is no way to influence the regulation for Norway (as Norwy has no EU representation). There is flexibility in Norway's parliament can at any point not to accept a regulation... but they must then leave the EEA. Switzerland's Model: Similar to Norway's, but each area negotiated individually. Freedom of movement has tended to be as if the Swiss were an EEA country. In some areas is closer integration than Norway (food imports) and others less. New EU regulations have to be negotiated again. This has led to the Swiss having lots of referendums, which may require that earlier deals are broken and may need to be renegotiated. Canada model: This is completely different to the other two. It's a very comprehensive trade deal where we remove tariffs (mostly), agree on some mutual standards and a mutual recognition on the certification of standards (if you can sell paint in the EU because it doesn't have lead in the paint, you can sell it in Canada without having to get the equivalent certification to the EU certification). But this does not do anything for our services sector which relies on the freedom of movement or our financial services sector which relies on "passporting" (agreeing to recognise mutual standards in financial services and each nation's regulators). The EEA model is a way for us to exit with minimal economic impact whatsoever - but in all honesty, it will leave both those who were for leave and remain both unhappy. Remainers will be happy that we can avoid weakening our standing economically in the aftermath of Brexit... but the EEA will also leave us beholden to EU regulations without any representation or means to have a say in what those representations for me. As someone who had to endure calls of how Brexit would give us national sovereignty and reaffirm principles of democracy - this solution seems totally lacking in giving any of that. If anything, it subverts our national sovereignty more than remaining in the EU does. And from my perspective, the biggest issue for leavers was immigration. This does not solve that. This also does not fly with the leave rhetoric of "muh national sovereignty! I suppose there is the emergency brake release from the EEA... but then we're back where we are now and left to negotiate where we stand on the continent AGAIN. Switzerland's model is a bit intriguing. Can we count on the British public to have the stomach for regular referendums though? It would take a long time for us to have the full deal negotiated, it took a very long time for Switzerland's deal to be negotiated. Canada's model, by excluding the service industry, does not solve the issues of Britain's biggest contributors to the GDP in the face of Brexit. Ultimately, what's best for our economy is the EEA - but it does not fly in the face of the political arguments made... and is no better option than remaining in the EU (which is as unrealistic a proposition as the belief that the EU will let us wipe the floor with them in negotiations, despite having less leverage).

That's sad, I hope he gets all the help he needs.

But he's not banning social media use, he's banning social media use showing his squad in training. If Pogba wants to dab on social media, he's free dab his retarded little heart out, as long as he's not on their training pitch.

He can dab all he wants, as long as it's not on the training pitch. Don't know why Mourinho was so furious at Shaw's footage of him training at home though. Seems a bit... oversensitive (or something) to believe it portrays United in a bad light.

There was no massive government coverup of Heysel, people went to jail for it, and England was banned from European football (although it probably just should have been us banned, but honestly in the 80s English fans were generally dangerous cunts, so it was safe). Whereas we had an MP feed lies to a sensationalist scumbag to cover up the fact the ground shouldn't have been chosen for the match, and that the police basically crushed 96 people to death. And it wasn't until decades later that there was any sort of vindication from them. So it's a bit different... Probably not to Juve fans... But it's not like they had to wait decades to not accused of killing their own. Because with Heysel it was clear what happened and there were things done to hold people responsible and Dole out punishment. Meanwhile we've got Kelvin Mackenzie still at the sun, the MP responsible for the lies has had no punishment, nor has the police who admitted responsibility. And to be honest Sheffield Wednesday and the FA played a part in it too, as they should never been allowed to host it when Spurs fans were crushed.

I don't know how to neatly split quotes up like you did... so I'll just go one by one. I didn't know that about McLaren, Honda and the spare Mercedes engine. It's interesting, reverse engineering to try to build upon an already good system is something Japan has done very well in the automotive industry. I honestly don't know what Honda is trying to prove by refusing to look outside of Honda for the answers. Definitely agree that Alonso's conduct has really hindered him, the way he left Ferrari probably damaged his chances of ever being in one of the best cars in a F1 season for the rest of his career. I agree, Renault is probably the most realistic option. I think he'd do well in a Williams car though, I think he's could outperform Massa right now - and I don't have a whole lot of faith in $troll. I also think Ricciardo will take Kimi's spot at Ferrari soon, personally. I think it's very close between Mercedes & Ferrari. Mercedes looks better in testing, but in an actual races Vettel and his car have looked outstanding.

I think Honda can go back to the glory days of McLaren-Honda of the 80s-90s, but it will take a serious attitude change from them. They no longer had any of their old F1 Engineers working, they lacked expertise and they've refused to bring in external people to help them get back into the sport. And they're really struggling for it. Ultimately, I hope Honda does get it together - it's better for the sport with more of the auto-industry involved. But it will require a big culture change from them for them to enjoy success in F1 again. And it really is embarrassing how bad their power unit has been for McLaren. If a car struggles to even make it through testing because of its engine, there will never be suitable testing for the chassis. The focus will always be on increasing the reliability of that power unit... and that's not even addressing the complete lack of power they're facing. I think Alonso needs to bail ship ASAP though. He doesn't have a lot left in his career, I'd like to see him do a bit more than struggle to finish races as he winds his career down. So how would we rank the cars right now? I think it's tough to tell who's better between Ferrari and Mercedes, Red Bull is comfortably third IMO, then I think it's pretty up in the air so it'd be interesting to see how we all rank them... and at the back of the pack Sauber and McLaren, in that order. For my middle of the pack: I'd go with: Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso, Haas, and then Renault.

Hahaha the Nasr thing is hilarious. As for Alonso shitting on Honda, I think it's justified. I think McLaren and their mechanics are fed up with this partnership but they can't go public, but Alonso is virtually unsackable. He can apply the public pressure on Honda. Let's be honest, the power units Honda has supplied for the last 3 years are shambolic. This latest one is such a massive regression, and with a company as large as Honda it's pretty unacceptable. It was a poor decision to leave Ferrari on Alonso's part, but Honda's ineptitude is literally pissing away a legendary racer's ability to compete and making a storied F1 team look like a total embarrassment. The entire McLaren team is being let down by Honda. While it might be arguably unprofessional and hurting the brand... it's also unprofessional to send a team out to compete without being properly equipped and it hurts the brand when that team can't finish a race. Honda, imo, look a total joke right now.

Italy and Germany don't really even compare in numbers, despite Italy relying on exports. German exports are made up of cars, appliances, industrial equipment, and chemicals used worldwide. Italy's biggest contributor to their economy is agriculture. They do make cars, motorcycles, and mopeds - but these are more niche vehicles compared to their German counterparts. Alongside this secondary tier of Italian exported products, they're also big on exporting luxury goods. Germany has a significantly more diversified economy, with a very small percentage accounting for agriculture. They are the world's largest exporter of cars - and these cars cover basically every range of cars - so they go for the niche markets and for the mass market appeal. Appliances and industrial equipment from Germany have very, very high reputations. And they've got a growing financial services sector. So they've got a more diverse line of goods/services exported out, appealing to a much wider global market... it's really no comparison.

Hahaha what the fuck. That has to be a wind up... or he's an idiot. The King brought us some much needed stability on his return, and a trophy, but you could tell he wants to use 90s tactics in modern day football and it just doesn't work. Klopp is not without mistakes... especially against the poor sides... but he's the better manager in this day and age, regardless of how good Dalglish was in our hey day.

Cunt.

If there is free movement post Brexit - it will absolutely be because it is in our economic best interests. If the alternative to free movement is losing major chunks of the industry that is the backbone of our GDP, free movement is a clear winner. But if the EU is going to allow that, they'll need us to give them a good reason for doing so. Personally, I don't think we're in a strong negotiating position as things stand.

International friendlies are a joke and always have been. I fucking hate them.

What do you think is a realistic scenario with how we'll be set up to trade with Europe and the rest of the world post-Brexit. If we lived in a world where Donald Trump didn't just win the U.S. presidency, I'd be fairly optimistic about the idea I once thought was silly of Britain being a part of NAFTA. But NAFTA's future is in doubt with Trump, and who in the hell knows how negotiating with his administration will go. His stance is reminiscent of very old U.S. isolationist policies. But realistically, what we've seen from his presidency is while he may have said certain things on the campaign trail... what he actually tries to push as a president may be very different. There's no real guarantee that NAFTA can become the biggest trading block and usurp the EU, especially as Trump's NAFTA talk caused massive economic uncertainty in Mexico, and now Mexico is looking for agricultural imports they've traditionally bought from the U.S. from Latin American countries. Fuck knows what kind of impact this will have on the United States' economy (although trade with Mexico accounts for 1 in 5 jobs in Texas). Mexico has to do this because in the face of economic uncertainty, any financial advisor will suggest diversifying. The UK and EU will be looking to do similar moves as well, considering the uncertainty in the future trade talks that lie ahead. The anti-globalist position of many Brexit supporters also poses major issues for the best way for Britain to enter into trade agreements in a post-Brexit world. For manufacturing to return to Britain en masse, we'd have to see workers rights in the country totally gutted, so as to provide for cheaper British labour. This would likely mean more jobs available... but it would also mean adjusting expectations regarding income and quality of life. Alternatively, we could force tarrifs on imported goods - but without bringing widespread manufacturing back all that will do is make it so fewer people can afford quality goods. And a less isolationistic approach would involve trying to engage in global trade, where the futures of the two largest trade blocks are in doubt and uncertain. Economic stagnation WILL lead to a brain drain. It doesn't matter what country it is, if you can take your qualifications and experience and get paid a lot more than you would in the UK... it is hard to say no to a significantly fatter wallet. My concern is that Britain has done so much to weaken it's manufacturing capability since the 1980s and done so much to push towards services being the backbone of our economy, what happens if the economy majorly stagnates and other countries come calling for our top export producers. The financial services sector makes up the vast majority of our net exports. Insurance services is the next largest, but it's barely a third (if that) of what the financial services sector does for net UK imports. As someone who's clients are generally banks and insurance companies... and who left the UK for moneymoneymoney, I see stagnation as a way for Britain to lose some of it's best talent. Honestly, I think Britain's best hope is for more and more isolationist policies coming from the majority of countries worldwide. But I don't think that's likely at all, as it doesn't make economic sense for most countries to adopt those policies. Ultimately, I understand the harm caused by Thatcher's dismantlement of our manufacturing sector and I know how it devastated communities. But at the same time, I think it's a bit of a case of "too little, too late" to fight against globalism decades after the western and eastern world have embraced it. I hope I am wrong, and that Brexit does some good for our economy and our people. But I don't think there was a whole lot of foresight in the arguments for Brexit and I don't really see the government moving with a cohesive and thought out plan, and I simply can't see it being good for us in the short term. I'm actually fairly despondent because last year I was thinking about moving back to England, but now I'm not confident it is in my financial interest to. And I'm not particularly thrilled about the possibility of needing to learn a new language if I want to get the hell out of America.

They've also got the incentive to make it unappealing as fuck for anyone else to leave the EU, because like Brits, they're going to be approaching this from a self-interested point of view rather than caring about the British public. They're fighting to keep the world's largest trade block in tact. And yes, it has become a political union (rather than the economic union that we were promised when we joined) - but they're fighting to keep Europe strong in global trade and to keep the EU stable. And considering the rise of populism in the West, I think that's understandable. Ultimately what's best for the EU and the UK are favourable terms for both parties and for their citizens living in the UK, and ours in the EU. But there are more political considerations at play than just the economy... and those are going to make an impact on how negotiations play out. I think that's a pretty simplistic view of things and it skips the obvious steps between where we are today and where we will be. Some of our biggest trading partners will remain major EU countries, by necessity. Whether you like it or not, they're major trade partners and our economy is tied to doing business with them. Trade talks being sorted will relieve economic uncertainty, which is good for everybody. With the likelihood of NAFTA being renegotiated and Trump being very pro-Brexit, it would probably be in Britain's best interests to try to become members of NAFTA (despite not being... in North America). As that's the largest consumer nation in the world, a former commonwealth country, and a large manufacturing country (albeit incredibly unstable because of the aftereffects of the U.S. war on drugs). Despite Trump believing that NAFTA is a bad trade deal, if it is renegotiated it's likely that Canada and Mexico will be able to secure better trade deals than were negotiated in the 90s - and that gives us a chance to walk up to the negotiation tables to land a new and beneficial trade deal. It is likely that once we're out of the EU, NAFTA will be the largest trade block. It won't really appeal to the nationalists and isolationists, nor does it promise to bring back manufacturing to this country (which, by the way, the real time to fight back against that was in the 1980s... rather than 30 years later after, with Western world wholly embraced globalism and convinced China to play along). But it does stand to not provide stability to British exports and our economy. But this could be the economic (not political) union that the EU was when we first joined. Engaging in trade deals with NAFTA nations and the commonwealth is key for us going forward. The big concern then is... are we a country for sale to corporate interests. Are we going to increase privitisation of healthcare and education to be more in line with America? Are we going to remove worker protections and rights we've had under the EU to be more in line with the worker rights of the US (and as someone working in the US, I'm not sure that will be a very popular switch...) - do we have to make major changes so that we can survive in the world economy (because globalism is not going away). Can the UK economy be strong enough to prevent a major brain drain?

Merkel has rejected May's calls for parallel trade talks. The uncertainty over what will happen with British trade is probably the most unsettling thing for our economy, and stability will only come once it has been negotiated where we'll stand in the scheme of global trade. Ultimately, we've got the EU with the most leverage in trying to protect its interests... but at the same time the EU may be in it's death throws. And at the same time, there might be a dissolution of Britain as we know it in the aftermath of Brexit. The next two years will certainly be interesting. I don't think there's any way to really avoid a bumpy road ahead, until there can be more certainty as to what the fuck will actually happen during the next two years.

The only thing I don't like about the Switch is the range on the joycons when it's docked. The range for them, particularly my right joycon is totally shite. Which is funny because I've heard more people were having problems with the left one generally... but that one works fine for me. So I bought a pro controller as well, so when I'm playing with my Switch docked I can a normal distance away from the screen. But I'm not going to lie, I'm fairly disappointed with the range of them. Zelda is fantastic though. A really really great game. And the ability to take a game like that with me on the go is pretty great.

Just got a Nintendo Switch... so I'll be playing Zelda when I'm home from work I haven't played a Nintendo console since the N64, and I haven't played a Zelda game since the Ocarina of Time... so my inner child is pretty excited.

Our start to 2017 killed our chances. Pretty sad. But it also highlights the need for squad depth, because we're good but incredibly thin and when things fell apart we didn't have personnel to really change things up tactically (although, I'd argue we could have at least fucking tried... considering how consistently bad we were). For now, it looks like we may have turned things around a bit. We've looked better in the last three matches, although two of those were Arsenal and Citeh... and big games are where I expect us to perform. I'm not sure if it's a mental thing or if it's a tactical thing where we just can't break down sides that don't take as many chances - but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.

McLaren's rumoured to have approached Mercedes about using their engines this season. If true, very very embarrassing for Honda (although producing an engine so lacking in power and reliability, to the point where McLaren don't even know if they can reach the checkered flag is already very embarrassing) - and also makes it harder for other manufacturers who want to get in/return to the sport. Can't say I would blame McLaren for wanting to go back to Mercedes engines though. Their reunion with Honda has been underwhelming to say the least.

I feel for Alonso, it really is a waste of talent. Ferrari hype is so real though!

I think that Red Bull car looks fucking great. The McClarens look really good - shame about the performance though...

I very much want Massa to have a good season. McClaren-Honda's looking bad. Alonso's said with their lack of power, every corner is flat out... and even said something along the lines of we're ready to win, Honda is not. He's not happy.

Tbf those 2 had good managers, while we came in second on the backs of pure talent from Suarez, Sturridge, and Gerrard rather than an astute manager...

That's what I read yesterday. And I hope remains the case. Wahhabism can fuck right off.