saint si

BBC helpfully carries the "as it stood" table on all the match reports ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46677237

"He put himself in a position" -> that's really dangerous talk. Quite worrying if CPS really thinks that way. "No one dragged him to that hotel room" -> not illegal to go to a hotel room "No one forced him to have a sexual encounter with an inebriated, total stranger" -> not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger "To somehow pretend that he is a complete victim is nonsense." -> he was arguably the victim of an inadequate/negligent defence (settled out of course, so this is not proven) resulting in an unsafe conviction.

yep...

1) yep. for the zillionth time, it's not a bargaining chip if we want to have any lasting standing in the world 2) and in many ways that is a major purpose of having a transition period - creating some headroom to put in place trade deals (not least with the EU itself) 3) the "uncertainty" would be in respect of what our future trading relationship would look like. If we crash out then we have exactly same uncertainty as we will inevitably start trying to negotiate a new trade deal with EU (as well as others). Only in that scenario we *also* lose the immediate certainty of having any kind of established trading relationship. In any case the certainty of a terrible outcome is not a de facto better position than having some uncertainty* 4) it's a transitional arrangement. That's just the nature of it and blindingly obvious. EU is not likely to pass anything particularly damaging on us in the interim period ... honestly not even sure it is that easy to come up with such a law that would simultaneously hurt Britain and enrich the other EU nations (there's an open challenge to Wes and the other scare-mongers). In practice if it did we would just take a long time implementing it, argue about it a lot, and delay and delay until we exit the transitional arrangement. Maybe a better solution is if we had a seat at the table, elected representatives in the European Parliament and some kind of veto power maybe? * reminds me of when football teams are called "inconsistent" ... like it is somehow better to be consistently bad

There is also the opposite problem. Refs don't award pens/freekicks easily if the player stays on his feet or if there is no contact. The player who hurdles the challenge and doesn't go down often doesn't get any reward, despite having being impeded. Commentators and pundits also contribute to this with phrases like "he's got every right to go down there" and analysing challenges for some miniscule amount of "contact". Look also at the Sims kick-in-face incident... the only reason that wasn't given is because Vertonghen also got the ball yet completely irrelevant to it being dangerous play.

So the previous PM, whilst heading up the previous government, made a promise that he can't deliver (due to not being PM anymore)? Oh what a completely new state of affairs this is.

I thought Brexit was supposed to make us the darling of the global economy, a really wonderful place for business that foreign multinationals will be falling over themselves to invest in. Is that bit not happening then?

Are we supposed to be celebrating because one particular industry hopefully won't be decimated? The need to avoid instability on the financial markets is hardly a massive vote of confidence in post-Brexit Britain.

3,500 jobs underplays it. Easily add another 10k for the supply chain and local economy reliant on Honda.

This is possibly the best (worst) use of an analogy I've ever heard.

That's more of a question for the UK government and than home office than for the EU

And leavers have the temerity to accuse pro-EU folks of "project fear"...

Treaty of Rome. 1957. It's literally the first sentence of the treaty. https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

Yes, we* voted for it in 1975. *not me personally

You mean how we spent 2 years negotiating a withdrawal agreement and then with a couple of months to go we changed our minds about fundamental things we'd already agreed? Yeah we will definitely come out of that really well.

Ok well let's take a few random points in the article then... 1) he thinks that Brexit will mean the UK is more like Singapore. OK cool. So then why move to Singapore? 2) he is "only" moving 2 senior jobs to Singapore and not moving production or R&D. Sure but he's moving the HQ in order to take advantage of the favourable tax and global trading conditions that Singapore offers. So again he's not backing the UK to be the free-trading global utopia that he envisages. 3) difficulty hiring staff from outside the EU. Nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with UK immigration policy. As the article admits. 4) he is frustrated at talent leaving the UK after education ... again the article admits this is not EU's fault. Does anyone think that leaving the EU will mean this talent is more likely to stay? 5) this part is some of the most tortured logic i have ever seen: If they speak to Sir James, I am sure he will tell them the same as other entrepreneurs: That they appreciate low taxes, flexible labour laws and efficient regulation. As things stand, Britain scores quite highly in these areas, which is why — contrary to Remainers’ scare stories — the economy remains healthy and we continue to attract overseas investment. Businesses desire certain favourable trading conditions... fair enough. According to the very next line, Britain (we're still in the EU, remember!) already offers these conditions which is why we are in such strong shape (bit debatable, but ok). So if that is the case then why leave the country for Singapore? Unless he thinks they will actually worsen in the next few months for some mysterious reason? And what's the push to leave the EU if we already have what we need to attract investment. Oh it's all so very confusing! I completely agree it's not hypocritical to practice globalisation. It is hypocritical to claim that Brexit will position the UK as the hub of globalisation and then not be willing to take the bet on that.

Don't listen to him. It's Project Fear. Everything will be fine with a second referendum if we just believe in it enough.

You still on your 1 man crusade against people saying "crash out"? Even having seen multiple examples of pro-Brexit folks in the independent media using the very same phrase? And with the official vote leave campaign having promised a deal because even they recognised that it would be essentially insane to do it any other way? Keep up the good fight!

Sure. If only the prime minister had appointed a prominent leave-supporter as the minister responsible for negotiating our exit from the EU. In fact it would probably have been the easiest deal in human history.

It looks exactly like multiple existing international treaties and pieces of UK legislation. But you already know that.

Just calling it a deal doesn't make it a deal.

Was your own letter not enough?

Well yes, precisely.

Now post the equivalent graph for UK GDP. Then explain why rest of world is going to be so desperate to trade with us.

Yes, this piece was clearly written by a remainer: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/7752792/australian-view-brexit-trade-deal/ The very context it is used proves my point: "It would be better to crash out of the EU than be locked indefinitely in the single market and the customs union" You seem a bit upset by all this.