Ian C

How about I answer this one? Me not being British at all, a proud Irishman, socialist and democrat fyi. As an aside, Ireland is probably the best comparison of what a republican Britain would look like. Ireland's political system is almost a direct clone of the British system c1920 - with the monarch replaced with an elected President and the House of Lords replaced by a Senate. First of all, the monarchy is cheap. Really cheap. The royal household costs the taxpayer ~£30m a year. It's a pittance per person (In the region of 70p). This money is more than clawed back in various tourist and merchandise related taxes and jobs gained. Cost is not an argument against the monarchy, more an argument in favour. Second, the monarch is a unifying figurehead. It is an apolitical symbol of Britain's proud past and traditions. The pomp and circumstance surrounding the monarchy is as positive a display of nationalism possible. People from across the political divide can be proud of their monarchy. Elections can be divisive and bitter and about personalities. And that's even when you have serious policy issues to debate. Now imagine the election was for a position that had no policy powers (The Irish President for example). What is there to discuss besides personalities? Our Presidential Elections have a habit of being very bitter affairs (the previous one ending in the most bitter fashion with a live-on-TV decimation of the front-runner by Sinn Fein calling into the debate's producers and supplying incriminating information without any evidence). One only has to look at Britain in the 30s and 40s to see a nation that rejected fascism, had political unity and a monarchy that held public resolve together even as the bombs fell and defeat seemed imminent. Philosophically I disagree with monarchy in the hereditary sense, it is elitist and anathema to a equal, democratic state. But speaking pragmatically, the monarchy's benefits to Britain far outweigh its negatives.

Gibbo was injured.

Gibbo off, Naismith on. fuck.

Never got the impression that Barkley is a 2-in-the-centre sort of midfielder. More of a toss-up between playing Barkley in the hole or playing Vic up front.

Worst. Referee. Ever.

Bit of a non-story seeing as we'll be in the CL next season </delusion>

Fucking made up for Ossie.

That is one of the most horrifically fucking misogynistic things I've ever read on here, and this is a football forum.

Ordered this last night, visa card cried as I typed its numbers into steam.... Can't wait!

I adore this man. Truly world class.

The ratings are annoying me. Pienaar and Jelavic are both ridiculously low. 80/81 for both would be more like it. Normally I don't care but it makes default Everton pretty unplayable in career mode without gutting half of the team.

*taps foot*

2 goals, 2 assists for Mirallas. Bit of a mental full debut by any standard, regardless of the opposition.

Well hellloooo silly season.

I think when Gibson went off it became rapidly clear how important that stable pivot in midfield is to ball retention and ultimately scoring. One of the first names on my teamsheet now.

Some strike that. But Howard, long strikes etc.

Half time show for those of us on the bland PL streams.

Perfect game for a Mirallas debut too, hope we see him around ~65 mins. Can't remember an Everton side as fluid and multi-faceted as this. You have the traditional Bainaar on the left, Jelavic running in behind, Fellaini causing havoc waiting for a long ball to control and turn on and Osman/Pienaar/Naismith running around the middle making short passes. Fucking beautiful.

We're gonna win the league!

Impressed with Naismith so far.

GOD IS GREAT

Howard, Neville, Jagielka, Distin, Baines, Naismith, Osman, Gibson, Fellaini, Pienaar, Jelavic. Now... Osman or Felli deep?

Ah, that explains it! Sorry Josh!

Don't think Mirallas will start. The way the midfield performed last week it'd be a bit unfair for any of them to lose their place.

Nearly