17 stone giant

Ok. Yes, I've since read that if the deal is voted down, the 12 April deadline is for us to come up with something else and then tell the EU what we want. Just to add that May is saying that she thinks it would be wrong to extend and in doing so make us have to vote in the EU elections. So, she's still basically saying it's a choice between her deal and no deal.

So, we're either leaving with May's deal on 22 May, or leaving without a deal on 12 April? Have I got that right?

No problem at all, Oliver. I'll tell you what we'll do: You make a payment of £50000 (and any Leave voters who have now changed their minds for the same reason as Oliver, can do likewise) to the UK's bank account to cover the cost of all the disruption and ###### that you've caused these past three years, and the rest of us promise that we will happily accept your change of opinion. The money will go to the "Failed Brexit "scheme and any individual or company who has lost out as a result of the failure of the likes of Oliver to think about the true consequences of their voting decisions, can make a claim so that they haven't lost out in any way. Until such a payment is made, I'm afraid Oliver that your future entitlement to vote will have to be suspended, because we just can't take the chance that your inability to do proper research or think about things in any depth, will cause a repeat of this situation again in the future.

Absolutely disgusting comments from Wes Streeting. He should apologise immediately for those remarks.

On the plus side, apparently it might result in the end of the Conservative Party. Every cloud....

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/the-eu27-are-far-less-prepared-for-no-deal-brexit-than-youd-think/

Just to add to the debate about being ready for a no-deal Brexit...how has it happened that all 27 EU member countries are ready for a no-deal Brexit, but the UK isn't? That's either breathtaking complacency and incompetence on our behalf, or maybe some of those 27 countries aren't quite as prepared for a no-deal Brexit as we're being given the impression they are. I wonder which it is.

On the other hand, Angela Merkel has been saying that she will 'fight until the final hour' to avoid a no-deal Brexit. Given that the above tweets claim that the EU is apparently ready for and presumably therefore unconcerned by the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, I can only assume that Merkel is being very kind and thinking about poor old Britain. It's really very decent of her to fight until the last minute to make sure that the harm done to the UK is minimised. We couldn't really blame her for thinking "well, the EU is ready for no deal, so stuff the UK. If they're not ready, tough luck."

You're asking the wrong person there, because I voted Remain and so never gave much thought to what a Leave situation would be like. However, if you directed that question at David Cameron and all the MP's and everyone else who were responsible for there being a referendum, and for "Leave the EU" being one of the options on the referendum ballot paper, I assume they would be able to give you an answer.

The answer is for Parliament to work towards forming a consensus as to how we leave. This, however, can't happen when there is a group of MP's who simply refuse to accept the result of the original referendum. They are deliberately seeking to obstruct any and every suggestion put forward, in an attempt to try and force a second referendum which they hope will result in a Remain vote, which they can then hypocritically argue settles the matter. I gave one such example as the SNP MP's. I keep hearing from them that Scotland didn't want to leave blah blah blah. They are ignoring the fact that the vote was about what the UK as a WHOLE wanted. It wasn't a referendum where different areas could choose individually whether they wanted to remain or leave. There wasn't an option for London to stay in the EU, but for Norwich to leave, or for Scotland to remain, but Wales to leave. That's not how it worked and all MP's now need to act in the interests of the UK people, and a majority of the UK people voted to leave. I fully expect there to be differences of opinion on exactly how we do that, but how we do it should be the ONLY focus of all MP's. None of them should be wasting time and effort re-running the campaign for Remain and trying to disrupt Brexit. That horse has bolted. Get on with the job of honouring the result of the referendum. Countries can join the EU, so they can leave too.

2013 was a World Cup, so skews the figures somewhat. 2016 was a double header that also included Australia v NZ. Arrange an England v Scotland or Ireland game in a normal year and see how many people turn up. I think you'd be lucky to get 5000, and I can tell you that I certainly wouldn't be interested in watching it on TV. Why would I be? It's not a contest and the Scotland team is a joke. It's England reserves with a few Aussies. I've just looked at the so-called Scotland squad from 2016 - the match that you're happily trumpeting as being a proper test - and I can only find one player actually born in Scotland. I know that modern sport does take advantage of the heritage rules, but there has to be a limit somewhere. It's stretching credibility to call that team "Scotland".

I voted Remain but I accept the result of the referendum and I think a 2nd referendum would be a disastrous idea. For a start, what happens if it ends up 51% to 49% for Remain? Why should any Leave voter accept such a result when SOME Remainer's (and I assume you're one of them) refuse to accept the result of the original referendum? Leave voters would be perfectly entitled to claim that nothing was settled and to demand a third referendum next year. You can't just decide that a referendum is decisive and binding when you win, but when you lose say that we ought to be able to have another go. That's a recipe for chaos. If they fudge things and do have a second referendum, I will vote Leave in order to honour the original vote. I've seen other Remain voters say likewise. The argument over whether we leave the EU is finished. We're leaving. The question now is on what terms. That is what the focus should be on for ALL MP's. I'm sick and tired of certain MP's trying to re-run the referendum debate. I have the most sympathy for SNP MP's because they actually voted against holding a referendum in the first place. However, and despite that, they are members of the UK Parliament (NOT the Scottish Parliament) and therefore they also have a duty to act on behalf of the UK people (who voted to Leave). Their focus should not be on finding every and any possible way to thwart Brexit - their focus should be on how to achieve the best possible Brexit. I expect the same from ALL MP's, irrespective of whether their own constituency voted Leave or Remain.

I think just stick an "ophibia" after it. That seems to work. Christianophobia Rugby Unionophobia Brexitophobia

I was hoping the Aussies would come over three years out of four, not every year. The fourth year GB would go down under. Even then it was based on the assumption that all future world cups will be in the UK, which hopefully wouldn't be the case anyway (but it might be for 2021 and 2025). I know it's expecting a lot, but I think it makes sense for Australia and New Zealand to travel north more often than GB travels south. We get decent/good crowds in England for matches against those teams, and we don't have anyone else locally to play. There are more teams in the southern hemisphere, plus there is State of Origin, so the casual rugby league fan (that the sport is trying to attract) is already quite well served (or at least has the potential to be). If we can't get regular, high quality, high profile internationals in the northern hemisphere, then the sport sadly is going to disappear off the radar. As good as the Challenge Cup and Grand Final might be, they're not going to put a spotlight on the game in the same way that an Ashes series would.

Firstly, I think we need to play always as Great Britain. Not necessarily in this particular order, but I'd like to see: Year 1 World Cup held in GB and France - most games in GB, but France playing some of their matches at home. Year 2 Ashes series in GB. For me this is up there with a World Cup - maybe even higher. I would play double headers with Wales v France as the curtain raiser for GB v Australia. Year 3 Four Nations in GB/France - involving those two countries, plus Australia and NZ. Year 4 Tour to southern hemisphere with maybe Four Nations (Tonga instead of France) and a game against PNG The southern hemisphere option would depend on what Australia and New Zealand wanted. If they want to play a 4N that would be good. If not, just do a tour but play Aus, NZ, Tonga, PNG and midweek against Fiji and Samoa. I'm confident that the three years in the northern hemisphere could/would be well supported. Probably all pie in the sky stuff, but I can dream!