saint si

Thanks for telling me what my point is. But you have missed it spectacularly. I agree that the BBC is beholden to different standards than privately owned media outlets. Probably a good idea for you to brush up on the BBC's charter also btw. I am actually rejecting the central premise of your argument that "crashing out" is biased language. The evidence I give for this is that everyone - even the explicitly pro-Brexit outlets - is using this phrase. That demonstrates that the phrase itself is not biased, and hence your argument that the BBC should behave differently from everyone else is moot. The BBC has been using the phrase - just like everyone else - for months. I doubt the complaints of a few snowflakes made an iota of difference. I look forward to seeing it in further usage this year. Happy new year!

Not the point. If the pro-Brexit press is freely using the phrase that undermines your assertion that it implies a bias against Brexit.

As opposed to the language used by, say, the Telegraph or the Sun https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/15/ministers-fear-uk-will-crash-eu-without-deal-isnt-time-pass/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/7752792/australian-view-brexit-trade-deal/

What's the rest of this list? Because at a certain point "sorting out some administrative things" starts to sound a lot like a "deal"...

Explain in what ways you think he was unelected.

I've never really understood the line of reasoning that we need to leave the EU to stop the EU giving subsidies/loans to other countries that result in manufacturing leaving UK (for anyone that accepts that premise in the first place). Like somehow us being outside the EU won't actually result in more of it.

1) that was the last government, not the current one 2) everything else the government said was touted as lies and project fear 3) government is not sovereign so can't make that promise Apart from that, yeah it's cast iron.

You seem to be arguing with yourself. My point is precisely that there are infinite different forms Brexit can take and most of your above rambling is saying the same thing. Given that we now agree on that, it also follows that on referendum day nobody knew which of these forms would ultimately transpire. Even today we don't know for sure, though we certainly have a better idea of what forms it cannot take. Hence the phrase "you didn't know what you were voting for". It's not a personal attack, or a critique on anyone's intellect, it's just a point of demonstrable fact. (and aside to this, the PM's deal and future relationship is actually for a hard brexit as originally defined. i.e. leaving the single market. You lot are reading too much in to the withdrawal agreement which simply means we have to quite sensibly go through a transition phase to get there)

So there is more than one type of Brexit? Proper Brexits and improper Brexits? Who could have imagined.

He didn't say a referendum. He said "Can you name another vote where the decision was voted on again BEFORE the result was implemented." ID cards were voted in to law by parliament (the elected representatives of the people, don't forget) in 2006, and then voted out again (by parliament) in 2010. There were some trials, but nobody can claim it had been implemented.

ID cards

This I don't get at all. 1) The EU does not stop us trading with the rest of world. 2) It in fact enables it, through its ability to negotiate broad ranging free trade agreements that UK has been able to enjoy the benefit of 3) Your own statement supports this point ... you are literally saying that as an EU member, we have been able to enjoy increased trade with the rest of the world! (BSc Economics, FWIW)

So this proves what... being in the EU is no barrier to our global trade aspirations?

This sounds a lot like Russia

Project Fear.

Those pesky European courts imposing their decisions on us!

Because why would we want to prevent ourselves from selling players when our entire business model is based on it?

So you are "not sure what they could do in the circumstances" but you're definitely sure they advised and represented him well. Ok then.

No, he is trying to sue his legal team for malpractice. Do you have some evidence that they did a good job?

Is this now Saints related due to involving a former player? (bonus points to anyone that can work out who it is)

I'm sure that if it is anything to do with Portsmouth it will be the previous club - nothing to do with the current incarnation that happens to share the same name.

Yeah this - the whole point of the exercise was to send a warning - as obviously and publicly as possible. Including to people who might be thinking of testifying to Mueller, for example.

Chromebooks aren't dependent on having internet connection all the time. https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/3214688?hl=en-GB If you are a user of Google Docs, Sheets etc then i would definitely recommend. If you simply must have MS Office then probably look elsewhere.

It was 0-0 btw

If he stays fit for most of the season he'll be a great asset. Look forward to seeing him against his old club on Sunday. Imagine the 20m is the maximum fee payable which would hopefully include a large element based on appearances, and the final transfer itself may even be subject to his fitness over this coming season.