Whitey Grandad

Ah, I may has misread your original comment. The situation as it currently stands isn't one of the options to vote for. We're voting for whether we prefer a changing and unpredictable future in the EU or out of it. Did you mean 'a changing and unpredictable future in the EU or out of it' or 'a changing and unpredictable future in the EU, or out of it' ? If it was the first then I can agree with you to some extent, although I think we have a lot more influence should we choose to remain.

That's not what you asked. This is our government over which we do have total sovereignty is it? I can't follow these arguments. 'Leave the EU to take back control' because we don't actually have any control at the moment? Or do we only have any control over our own government if we leave the EU?

28, the same as there are now unless the vote today says otherwise and then it might be 27. In any case we have an absolute veto over any new members, unless the vote today says otherwise. So we have total control over any enlargement, unless the vote today says otherwise. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36355138

Or because it's a Monday.

That's not really true. If we vote to stay we have control over what will happen, or at least a veto over anything we don't like. If we leave then we will have cast our fate to the winds.

Yes, a million spoilt papers is quite a lot. The problem with the usual elections is that there isn't a box for 'none of the above'.

Have a great time Bazza. Opportunities like this don't come a round very often. I'll look out for you in the crowd

She would only have bounced off him just like everybody else.

Please remind me of the turnout, and I would assume that the terms of reference were different to ours. What I can't understand here is that it appears to have been called without actually telling those voting what the implications are and what exactly we are voting for. Just saying STAY or LEAVE is too simplistic for me and even now I suspect that those voting to leave are doing so for widely different motives ranging from a genuine belief that we would be better outside the EU to immigration, jingoistic pride, cost of membership, xenophobia and downright racism. For some it will be just one big protest vote even if they don't exactly know what they are protesting about. Why couldn't we also have had an associated opinion poll listing a range of possible concerns with a choice of boxes to tick?

It took some time but recently I read that this referendum was only 'advisory'. Normally for significant constitutional change in any organisation you would need a 2/3 majority. I think that the reason so many people are undecided and the polls are so close is that the media on the whole have been treating it like a general election where every side has to have a chance to state their position. This means that all sorts of loonies can come out and spout all sorts of nonsense (on both sides) and in the minds of the public thay have equal credence. The big difference here is that the Leavers will not have to clear up any mess that they create and won't even be in a position of power to do so.

I totally agree that the present levels of immigration are harmful to our quality of life and totally unsustainable but I'm afraid that it makes no difference who we elect or who we throw out, they won't do anything about it. I think this article in The Times from Monday sums it all up: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2016-06-20/comment/dont-fall-for-leaves-promises-on-immigration-g87qdtl75 "The point is that to reduce migration significantly you need not only the ability to do so but the political resolve. That is not to suggest that David Cameron has been totally laissez faire. Reforms to family and work visas have cut the numbers. But when I worked at No 10 in 2010-15 — writing key speeches on immigration — I saw time and again how the Whitehall machine and various vested interests move to crush proposed immigration reforms. Potential announcements were watered down, filtered through various departments with their own objections, caveated to nothing."

I must admit to a concern about J-Rod.

There is absolutely no chance that Turkey will be joining the EU. Of all the scaremongering that I have seen this ranks as the worst. You need to understand the politics, 'opening talks' is just diplomatic talk and means as much as 'we must have lunch sometime'.

I strongly agree that the population growth is harmful and not sustainable but I can't agee that leqaving the EU would make the slightest bit of difference. Last year to December 2015 the net figures were 184,000 EU and 188,000 non-EU (Migrationwatch) and there seems to be no appetite amongst our various layous of government to do anything about either. We could clamp down severely on non-EU but we haven't done so for as long as I can remember and whatever we are voting for tomorrow I am pretty certain that we won't be voting to leave the Rest of the World. Despite popular belief we can actually control EU immigration. A citizen from another member state can be removed from the country unless they are 'economically active' (working), studying or self-sufficient. From what I can discern there is not system in place to regulate or enforce this and only a handful of people have ever been asked to leave. So, tomorrow we make our choice but don't for a moment believe that net immigration will be reduced. It hasn't happened up to now and it's not going to change after the vote whatever the outcome. There's simply no political will for it amongst the politicians and vested interests.

Ironic in a way seeing as CMD's motives for caling it were to stop the bickering once and for all.

I can tell by your replies that you might need some more time to consider this unfashionable suggestion I wonder where the country would be now if we had adopted the € at the right time and rate? Everybody is entitled to their whim. Just think of this as my 'Dalek' obsession. Nice to hear from you again CB and just for old times' sake, shouldn't it be a capital G on God?

I think he said that he would not seek a third term, which is not quite the same as quitting.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Personally I think that not joining the Euro was one big missed opportunity but that ship has sailed.

That is most definitely not true and you have no reason for saying it. My view is based of a lifetime of experience and over 30 years of designing, manufacturing and exporting. My concern is for the next generations of Britain, some of whom do not have a vote at the moment. At my age I could no longer be described as very active in business terms but I remember what it used to be like in the bad old days before the Single Market arrived. As for leaving, I can see no pluses, just promises and predictions made by people who are in no position to understand what they are saying nor take any part in sorting out the mess that they would create. The creation of the Single Market was one of Thatcher's great achievements which swept away piles of red tape and bureaucracy and yet the Leavers want to bring it all back by re-introducing Customs controls and delays. These 'powers that be' of which you speak are based in London, not Brussels, and that is where we should be concentrating our pressure for change.

Voting Leave is almost the perfect definition of ignorance and dumbness.

Wishful thinking, Wes. The whole point about Project Fear is that there really is something to be terrified about.

Yes, totally agree. Here's a fact for you: There will be more matches at Euro 2016 than there were at Euro 1960, Euro 1964, Euro 1968, Euro 1972, Euro 1976, Euro 1980 and Euro 1984 combined (51 to 50). (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-game-in-numbers-euro-inflation-at-france-finals-2072sx9jz) And a view from CNN: "Euro 2016: Quantity, not quality?" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/17/football/euro-2016-expansion-24-teams-mendieta-ancelotti/

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned The Times from this morning: Southampton are planning to interview Carlos Carvalhal, the Sheffield Wednesday head coach, this week as they continue their search for a successor to Ronald Koeman. The south coast club suffered a blow yesterday when Rudi García, the former Roma and Lyons coach, rejected their advances on the grounds that he is only interested in working for a club in the Champions League. Southampton have several other candidates on their shortlist, including Fenerbahce coach Vitor Pereira, but speaking to Carvalhal is now their priority. The Portuguese has had an itinerant career, working at 14 different clubs in Portugal and Turkey before joining Wednesday at the start of last season, which finished with the South Yorkshire club losing to Hull City in the Championship play-off final. The 50-year-old’s representatives have been contacted by Southampton, who have been impressed with his almost reaching the Premier League on a limited budget, and he is expected to discuss the job in the next few days.

Pochettino's coming back

Not just the crossing, what happened to the first-time cross or shot? Throughout the Premier League these days everybody wants to take a touch first which only gives the defender time to make a block. If Sturridge had taken that chance of his with his right foot instead of trying to bring the ball down then the whole evening could have been different.