Honey Honey

It's a fluke, a coincidence though isn't it. These guys play football every single day.

Bet you wouldn't. Life is relative to lived past.

Chelsea have 1 point more than last season. If Sarri can keep that sort of progress up they'll win the title again in around 27 years time

He clearly wants to stay and we aren't far off that group above. We need to invest to get into it but he needs to use his contract situation as leverage to get that. He won't get it out of any sort of hierarchy desire to compete in the top 10. Since January only Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Arsenal have picked up more points than us so Mike Ashley will probably say we don't need any more and we can have Rondon permanent and that's it, sell to buy.

Just a personal observation that I'm seeing more from young people at football than I did 5 or 10 years ago, no data just assumption. Those young people 5 or 10 years ago are not the old people of today. Or perhaps what I am seeing is a shift toward more vitriolic tones. That's not exclusive to those with inappropriate behaviour. Being aggressive and shouty with opinions is a trademark of being young so it may be due to the topics that vitriol is now channelled through, such as political correctness. Certainly one common theme not just of any age group but across the board is to see opposition vitriol and become vitriolic in return. Few see the high ground as somewhere occupied by manners anymore.

I'm almost certain racism is on the rise among under 30s. A concoction of social media and the bizarre free for all goading environment that football is. The topic tends to focus almost entirely on middle aged men who have enough wealth to go to Chelsea games.

The polling is based on a hypothetical where the EU refuses extension and you are left with the choice of remain, no deal or not sure. That's not actually real life options currently. The result is also not a majority. Sample size is also probably very low. If anything, it might suggest that a bigger chunk of leave voters just want out no matter what than the amount of remain voters who will always tick remain.

Yeah... by continuity remain.

There already was a vote to oust May, she won it. You can't force another one there is a time limit on these things. Her job is safe. So her resignation and dropping the political declaration from the vote does offer the perception of chance to some of the ERG to reshape things. Over a year ago May already promised to resign before the next election. Bringing her resignation forward doesn't mean much. There is no consensus for anything in parliament, anything at all, in or out and its variances. The only way to establish consensus is to back people into a corner. Doing so is going to lead to politicians voting for things they previously voted against. You see in the indicative votes politicians voting for things they've already voted against.

I'm not convinced that the 28 are insincere about leaving itself. Would they be wrong? What is in a countries interest can only ever be a personal take. If you want to lead the country then at least part of you must believe that what you want to do is in the countries interest. When you lack support for your position in politics you must engineer it. Engineer a general election, a 2nd referendum, no deal, May's deal, all of this has been going on. A minority government is the most exposed to this kind of behaviour which is why the impasse is lasting as long as it is.

Not quite. 28 ERGers voted No. If they voted Aye it would have been Ayes 314 Noes 316. It could have also passed if the Labour MP's who told their electorates they would pass Brexit "honoured" the vote as you put it. Cheap to let them off and not the ERG if you think the problem is the ERG not honouring the "best" negotiation. May is constantly haunted by the 2017 election when she tried to increase the number of her supporters in parliament to counteract the ERG and ended up weaker instead! In addition many of the ERG voted for the deal because they've got their eyes set on replacing May and guiding the final outcome.

According to this journalist parliamentary momentum at the moment is toward revocation, not May's deal and not no deal if backed into a corner. As I have argued today, no deal requires a big parliamentary shift away from May's deal and revocation to occur. It doesn't just happen automatically because it's on paper, it happens by UK political choice.

Maybe some think that but I'd be surprised if that sort of thinking pattern exists in a widespread fashion. It's quite extreme in personality and cultural terms. Philippe Lamberts a Belgien MEP on the Brexit steering committee was on the BBC an hour ago saying that Westminster needs to find what it has a majority for then come back, anything else is a waste of time. This seems correct. Should the EU play hard ball and reject an extension after this one, forcing a choice, which then ends up in a no deal over something half trivial like the WA, I think the EU will have a hard time justifying their actions to disrupted and damaged businesses, particularly in Ireland and particularly to those who don't care much for or against the EU doctrine.

The rest of your post was irrelevant, it had noting to do with what I challenged. Your notion that I challenged is there in writing "The EEA member don't want the UK to join". As Gonzo said when he saw the counter evidence the prior evidence to that which is in question is "not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes". The country or government being de facto "The EEA member" you mentioned.

In regards to the threats impact on negotiations it depends on your own guess and assumptions of outcome. Reality is there is no evidence to support our judgments and intuitions on this. Maybe Varoufakis is the closest we have but then he is Varoufakis haha. The only outcome we can be certain of is the one which actually occured and the enviornment it actually occured in, such as one where no deal is not credible on the UK side and a minority government in power. In regards to spineless politicians. Vast numbers voted remain then said ok we'll Brexit at the election. They'll do what they think they have to in order to maintain their power. For them to back no deal as you say would require a public shift to no deal which doesn't have the polling numbers yet. This is also why I said for no deal to come about the EU has to do something clumsy. Perhaps Macron is the clumsy type. I also mentioned Mandelson types encouraging and advising the EU to make a move that ultimately is clumsy. That's because we know the hierarchy tacticians of the people's vote don't want one right now. I believe some publicly supporting people's vote MPs voted against a 2nd referendum the other day in the commons. They seem to be trying to create the enviornment and timing that they can get the vote and win it. Polling remains within the margin of error at the moment. The EU are made up of politicians, they play the same games and are the same shysters as anywhere else. May's deal. Corbyn's deal. No deal. EEA. FTA. Remain. It doesn't matter which one of these it is none of them have sufficient support. What must happen is circumstances shift and rhetoric primes in a certain direction until an outcome is reached. The ticking clock simply allowes politicians to not align. Of that Theresa May is right in her critique of her colleagues behaviour. They've had nothing to lose by being divided. The EU must try and force the issue without being cack handed. However the WA itself looks likely to create the same environment and division that prevents a deal ever getting ratified until such day comes that the UK has a sizeable government and not a minority one or one with a Cameron type tiny majority. I don't agree with the confidence with which some claims of what is most likely are made. When pressed as I have sought to do certain key considerations of what is required seem absent. You address a problem, you debunk a falsehood. The notion you put forward was false in terms of the evidence in question. Had it been made prior to the existence of the counter evidence the counter evidence could be considered as addressing the problem that the evidence implies. As the notion came after the evidence existed the notion is a falsehood whether you are aware it was false or not.

I'm pretty sure I have already debunked the credibility of that. With the right spread of news sources you'd have seen the debunking at the time as well. But for clarification that MP is campaigning to get Norway into the EU. Here is the actual Norweigan Prime Minister saying they would welcome the UK in EEA - https://euobserver.com/tickers/141798

As early as the first months post Brexit the political debate was whether to have a credible no deal threat in negotiations as leverage. It was decided not and is one of the driving forces behind ERG interpretations of how the negotiations have gone. Do you have any credible evidence for that claim?

I never said they would sit down and give a better deal. I said no deal is a political choice. The commons and government would have to shift to wanting no deal for it to actually happen. What is your evidence for that happening? What is your case that an immovable EU makes no deal more likely than say for example cancelling Brexit? A general election or a 2nd referendum? Do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about? Default implies it just happens without choice, yet no deal is a political choice that has to be made. To come about in the current enviornment it requires a significant shift in UK parliamentary arithmetic. Out of interest, do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

Maybe the deceptive liars saying they'll leave in public and hoping to stay in private. The one's outright after reversal are so small in number it's hard to see much blame or risk. No deal can only occur by choice and parliament is overwhelmingly against it. Only probably the actions of the EU could perhaps tip enough of the house toward the ERG mindset and cause no deal, though it would still be difficult.

No. Incorrect interpretation of the point.

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default. There is no ticking time bomb that they have to sort everything out by. It's not an episode of 24. This begs the question how does such a choice come about, whom by is it chosen. What's the answer to that which brings about no deal? Then we can assess the actual likelihood of the assertion that it is looking like happening.

I find those takes surprising. No deal can currently only happen by a clumsy move from EU leaders under the advice of Peter Mandelson types whereby they try to collapse the government to reverse the result and it goes to pot.

EAT. SLEEP. STAY UP. REPEAT.

Liverpool will offer Netherlands centre-back Virgil van Dijk, 27, a new contract worth £200,000 a week to fend off interest from Barcelona and Real Madrid. (Sunday Express)

Who is that? The ERG? All politicians who voted leave but against the WA? All politicians who have accepted that we should leave but voted against the WA? The greater point really is that in parliamentary arithmetic the premise that no deal is "incoming" because of disdain for Ireland doesn't hold up.