manxman1980

It is you that is going over old ground. I was responding to a comment by a "remainer" and explaining why you and others don't care about the negative impact that Brexit has had. I was genuinely surprised that you hadn't already brought up that argument.

They won't though because they are stuck in the denial stage of grief for their Brexit dreams. I am surprised that the issue of 'sovereignty' has not raised it's head yet as this "prize" is worth paying anything for in the minds of certain people.

Except where it enters into Trade Agreements and has to accept outside influence on UK rules in order to be able to have a trade agreement. I know you will argue that this is a decision made by the democratically elected UK Government but the country is now in a weaker negotiating position now and therefore will have to make more concessions. Essentially Brexit has positioned the UK to take a shafting from the countries that it wants to trade with. The state of the Tory party is, however, inextricably linked with Brexit. It was the subject of EU membership that was the cause of much strife and internal division over many years. It was this that led to Farage and others forming UKIP and applying pressure to the Conservative party. That in turn led to Cameron giving in to the Euro sceptics in the Tory party and holding the referendum. Up until that point the a small minority of typically Conservative voters and right wing nuts were voting UKIP which threatened the Tory party with losing power. There was no way that a party like UKIP would ever win a majority in Parliament. Since then the Tory party has fragmented further over what Brexit should look like, how hard or soft it should be, and now UKIP has rebranded to Reform and is still forcing some Tory MP's into more extremes. You are correct that there is no requirement for them to do so but those two PM's have also brought about significant alterations to their parties pledges but continued to claim that they had a democratic mandate for them. That is absolute nonsense as the public have not had the opportunity to vote on these new policies. I am afraid that these PM's cannot have it both ways. Merely to point out that they stood for election on a Conservative Manifesto but have now abandoned that to sign up for a Labour position that opposes much of what was in the Conservative Manifesto. Ironically the latest defection highlights this as even Labour MP's have questioned how she can do a 180 on her position in relation to immigration to then join the party she has been criticising endlessly. True democracy would have resulted in both standing down as MP's and byelections taking place. Yes, again, whilst it may be legally allowable under UK law it does make a mockery out of the argument about not wanting to be ruled by "unelected elites" or "unelected bureaucrats". One of those unelected Lords, by the way, not only had a huge role in this current mess but also has unanswered questions about their links to China... How do you feel about the UK falling under Chinese influence? The state of democracy in the UK is an absolute joke.

I will remind you both that the last two Prime Ministers in the UK have never led their party in a General Election. Liz Truss keeps babbling about the "blob". Apparently a shadowy group who are not democratically elected who really control the UK Parliament (post Brexit!). The current PM is clinging to power and delaying a general election despite the fact that his Government and party is a complete shambles and in the last two weeks two Conservative MPs have defected to Labour. The current Home Secretary isn't an MP at all and hasn't been for many years. Instead they were given a peerage to enable them to take up the post. There was also Zach Goldsmith who was given a peerage so he could remain in his post as Minister of State despite not being an elected MP. Rather makes a mockery of the notion that the UK is having its laws determined by a democratically elected Government doesn't it?

I think the Israeli Government have well and truly made that point. The latest military action in Rafah has left the Israeli Government being criticised by many of its allies. That rather suggests that these other nations now also think the Israeli Government have made their point. You suppose? I directly asked you that question. Why? The Israeli Government said at the start that they were targeting action in Gaza to recover the hostages. Since then we have heard from the hostages that were released that several of the remaining hostages were wounded and not receiving effective treatment, the IDF shot Israeli nationals who were waving white flags and speaking Hebrew, and most of Gaza has been flattened. There have also been requests from the families of the hostages to stop the military action in Gaza. I ask the question because it seems that the Israeli Government gave up any rescue attempts long ago in favour of trying to wipe out Hamas. As a result they probably condemned any remaining hostages to death one way or another.

So the Israeli Government are against peace? (Yes, I know its not that simple). You did not answer my question though.

Doesn't that just highlight the point we were making? The ideal question would have been "Should the UK remain in the EU or leave based on << Insert one realistic and deliverable option>> I would have gone for 60% majority. That gets you a clear difference between both options. Presumably the elected Governments of the time made these big decisions on behalf of the electorate?

And what about the rest of the points or are you just going to ignore the fact that the question was oversimplified and that there was a broad variety of opinions on what leaving would actually look like?

Do you really believe that any of the hostages are still alive? Between Hamas and the IDF I would imagine most have been executed, died of injuries or killed by the IDF as casualties of their campaign. I think that this has been one of the sticking points with any ceasefire. The Israeli Government have demanded that Hamas hand over live hostages and quite simply Hamas cannot comply with that requirement.

Muddying the waters yet again... 52% to 48% whilst a majority vote is not a clear result and in many other referendums would not have met the criteria to make such a big decision. The closeness of that result is what led to the impasse in Parliament, all the legal challenges and ultimately to the years of Political chaos that the UK has seen since and has left the country, rather ironically, with the last two PM's having never taken their party to a General Election having been voted for by either the members of the Conservative Party or Conservative MP's. We can all see that the current PM is desperately trying to delay a General Election to extend his stay in the top job or in the vague hope of the Tories finding a miracle. The problem with the actual question is that is massively oversimplifies the issue and during the campaigns leading up to that vote there was no clarity about what leaving actually would look like. As @RecklessAbandon has highlighted many on the leave side were not in agreement about what leaving actually looked like. This again led to much of the arguments immediately after the referendum and Parliament spending time arguing over what the result actually meant. The whole referendum was a debacle but I suppose it helps some people sleep to think that the UK is now free from unelected bureaucrats and "red tape"... erm... hang on...

Amusing that in three games this season Liverpool could not get a win against United. Unfortunately last night is just another example of the poor recruitment decisions that have been made and the general malaise that has been allowed to settle in at United. It also looks like the players have downed tools again. I would suggest that now would be an opportunity to let some of the talent young players gain some experience, however, the downside is that it could be toxic though.

The Sevilla reference was because that is a team most Liverpool fans think they should be able to beat without an issue. I remember that final because I shared an office with a scouser who stuck up a poster before the game with something like "Liverpool on tour in Europe" and was going on and on about how they would win that final and bring in a new era of trophies... The point about losing by a point to City is just nonsense. That's why I referenced United losing the title to Blackburn. I could also have referenced finishing second to City in the Premier League on the last day. It doesn't matter what your points total was if you only finish second. You were not as good or as consistent as the team that finished first. You cannot just wish City away and say "look what we would have won".

And if it wasn't for Blackburn and Arsenal then United would have won 12 league titles in a row... These arguments are stupid though. Blackburn and Arsenal won those titles. Liverpool lost out to City etc but that's the way football works.

You can't be a United fan if you envy Liverpool... They may be in a better place than United were when Ferguson left but only because the squad is younger. They still need to replace Salah and Van Djik. United's problem was that they really needed Mourinho or Van Gaal to follow Ferguson. They were managers who would have commanded respect from an ageing team that had just won a league title. They could have safely dismantled and rejuvenated the squad. Moyes wasn't the right person to do that. He didn't have the ability to attract new signings and he struggled to impose himself on a squad full of experienced winners. Ferdinand said it recently that Moyes seemed to think that United was like Everton and not understand that the standards were higher. Moyes isn't to blame for the decline but the club didn't get the right person at the right time. Liverpool could find themselves in the same place with a relatively unproven manager. Albeit the club is probably set up better to handle the transition than United were. Another factor with Liverpool is that they really should have won more under Klopp than they did. The fact they fell short amuses me especially when it was teams like Sevilla that were denying them trophies.

Did I hit a nerve? You are right, our season has been shocking and in all probability we will lose the FA Cup final to City. Despite that we still knocked Liverpool out of the FA Cup and drew with the both home and away in the league. In two of those three games this season United even had a player sent off. Even at our worst in years United can still upset Liverpool fans.

Did you win another soft drink cup for that game?

Wasn't it him who fantastically set up Fernandes to score in the FA Cup quarter final?

Well, you can keep living in the past if you want. The reality is that Liverpool are currently the third best team in England and were knocked out of Europe by the team currently sat in sixth place in Serie A. Arsenal meanwhile are sat in first place and locked in a title battle with Manchester City. That is the same Manchester City who you suggest Liverpool cannot compete with due to their state funding. Arsenal, of course, are also not beneficiaries of state funding. I would suggest that you be pleased with 3rd place, qualifying for the Champions League and winning a trophy. Just stop pretending that Liverpool are the best team in the country at present.

Come on... Nottingham Forrest have won more European Cup's than Arsenal. Does that make them a better team than the current Arsenal side? And interesting to see which trophies you included in your reference to Liverpool. That would be a total of 67 trophies. Guess which other team has 67 trophies including the ones you did?

And there we have it... a return to normal service from a Liverpool fan. Quoting history instead of paying attention to what is happening today. Arsenal finished above Liverpool last season and could end this season as League Champions. Even if they finish second they will once again be above Liverpool in the table making them the better team currently.

Wow! A Liverpool fan with some sense! 🤣

How are you better than a team who has been above you for the majority of the last two seasons? The league would suggest that over a season Arsenal are a better team.

Ten Hag had more success in the Netherlands as a manager than Slot. Sure they managed different teams but why did Ajax not look at him? Why did Chelsea and Tottenham both decided against Slot?

So you think Slot is comparable to Wenger, Klopp or Mourinho? I might accept Benitez as a comparison in that he will be popular with Liverpool fans but will not deliver anything beyond cup success. Benitez has not been a success in England though as he took Everton backwards although I am sure Liverpool fans will see that as a "success". Wenger is an interesting case as well. I think everyone recognises that he revived Arsenal and had some great teams, however, he won the Premier League 3 times and the FA Cup seven times. Does that really qualify him as one of the best managers seen in the Premier League or even the English top flight before the Premier League? If I was a Liverpool fan I would be genuinely concerned about how this season is finishing and whether your new manager will really be the success you all think.

I realise that which is why I was more specific. I think Dutch managers in England have had limited success in Cup competitions. Most have suffered damage to their reputations.