Wes Tender

I'm quite happy with Virgil and don't particularly miss Alderweireld.

Most people realised that as slippery as Cameron was, Red Ed would have been even worse, and had Corbyn been the Labour leader, Labour's chances would have been even slimmer.

This is a match where we needed strikers with confidence who know how to put a ball away. Players like Defoe, who you just knew would score against us, but Long and Austin for us. Instead with them both absent, we have Pelle and Mane both out of sorts. Pelle didn't have a bad game on the whole, but it was the worst performance I have seen from Mane, whose value must have plummeted still further. He didn't contest the 50/50 balls which he used to use his speed to get to first, he didn't offer any outlet from defence by clever runs into space, he hardly ever ran into the box with the ball at his feet, he was just a passenger for virtually the entire game. I wouldn't be upset to see him leave, but we aren't going to get much for him at this rate. Again I wonder at the tactical nous of Koeman taking off both of the gutsy midfielders Davis and Clasie together. OK, Ward-Prowse has been putting himself about recently, but it still left us a bit short. Romeu had another decent showing and Martina was OK at right back, although one wondered whether Cedric would have given more in terms of width and better crossing into the box. Sunderland played like a typical Big Fat Sam team away, 10 players behind the ball mostly, slow play down, go down at every opportunity to get free kicks and cards awarded to the opposition, whilst simultaneously disrupting play. Happily for them, they had a really poor referee who was easily conned by their antics. We might even have been better off had Friend been able to referee and that really is saying something. We never looked like scoring, but thank God for V.V-D, who just gets better and better and had a few opportunities to score from set-pieces as well as the well taken goal which saved us a point that we deserved, but frankly we didn't deserve all three on that performance. One can't help but feel that having secured our place in the PL for another season, the players just aren't motivated enough to climb the table into the Europe places any longer. 1 point from the last nine is diabolical when we have played Bournemouth and Sunderland the last two matches. So now we have Stoke away with no Fonte and unless they buck their ideas up, our poor run of form will continue. Long back soon would be nice, and seeing Rodriguez before the end of the season would also be a bonus. He might just want to prove a point more than Pelle and Mane do at the moment.

You should recognise the difference between the two cases, surely. The "fear" tactics have only really surfaced since Cameron's risible attempts to gain reform of the EU as a condition of our continued membership failed. He had said that he would campaign for us to leave if he didn't get those reforms agreed and he failed substantially to get very much by way of the reforms he wanted and there is no guarantee that even they will be passed by the EU if we vote to remain. Ridicule deserves to go Cameron's way for the sheer brazen two-faced way that he has blustered his way through these negotiations and now tries to convince the electorate that the economic repercussions of us leaving will be much worse than they would have been had we left without them. That there was a barrage of blatant anti-EU rhetoric in the press for decades must surely tell you something. Could it be that there had been successive treaties changing the entire basis of our membership of the European adventure from one solely based on trade, towards an inexorable march towards a federal Europe and the electorate was impotent in being denied a vote on it? Was there no foundation to the scandalous excesses of waste and bureaucracy, the way that subsidies produced gluts of produce or gave an unfair advantage to some countries and sectors of their industrial or agricultural organisations over others? I see that you have now upgraded your assessment of the importance of national Sovereignty, the supremacy of out legal system and control of our borders from "airy notions" to "esoteric". You really are one for damning such important issues with faint praise. I suspect that many of the electorate might well conclude that there is little to choose between what the economic effects would be either way, but that issues like immigration, the legal powers of the European Courts and the loss of sovereignty meaning that we have lost substantial controls over the future development of the direction that the EU is heading are all tied with those very airy notional esoteric issues. In particular, the immigration issue is the one that has far more impact on the man in the street, who has noticed the numbers of people they encounter speaking in languages they don't recognise, their local schools being filled to bursting point, the NHS struggling to cope and the shortage of housing becoming acute. It is easy to make the connection with how this is happening when the TV news features one or other of these particular issues connected with immigration every night. But if you feel that the electorate don't make the connection with this problem being caused by the freedom of movement of people as a condition of our membership of the EU and the ability to trade in its single market because it is an airy or esoteric notion, then you might be in for a shock come R day.

Of course there will be people voting because of their own vested interests, like those who receive grants and subsidies from the EU for example. But try telling the former workers of Ford's Southampton Transit plant that their jobs are more secure because we are in the EU. Whilst we're about it and with some interest to local workers in an important industry right here in Southampton, this might have a bearing on how many vote here:- http://capx.co/the-eu-is-about-to-crucify-the-uks-thriving-ports/ However, I take issue strongly with your dismissal of our nation sovereignty, independence and the control over our borders as "airy notions", as if they are some theoretical mumbo-jumbo rather than the cornerstones of a democratic nation. Yes, the debate so far lacks perspective, but the remain campaign have employed fear tactic rhetoric over whether people will be able to feed their children and pay their mortgages if we left the EU and that is to be condemned as underhand scaremongering.

If it is all Portsmouth, then why is the railway station called Portsmouth & Southsea?

Of course I'm not certain of anything, any more than the remain brigade are. But as I said, nothing about it is simple whichever way the referendum vote goes. But a few generalities about how human nature could help colour the result are worth consideration. There will be resistance to believing fear tactics if soothing noises can be made to reassure people by those trusted by the public that there is massive exaggeration of the consequences of us leaving. Threats from major corporations in the EU that they will pull out of production in the UK can be taken with a giant pinch of salt if it can be seen to be cutting off their nose to spite their face. The electorate, apart from those who are undecided, will put more stock in the arguments that they want to hear. The issues like immigration, the economy, sovereignty, border controls, etc, have a different order of importance for each voter. In order to have a complete debate, all of these issues need to be addressed and debated in a sensible, balanced way. Arguments highlighting the supremacy of the EU legal system over ours, that we have lost much sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats, that we have no control over our own borders, are powerful weapons for the leave cause. Labelling those who deplore these developments as "little Englanders", is not going to help the remain cause. Neither is it helpful to have character profiling of the average remain voter or leave voter in what might be taken to be derogatory terms. However, having characterised the leave voters as typically being over 55, there is a probability that they are more likely to vote, so a close poll rating prior to the actual vote could translate to something quite different on the day. The electorate have reason to wonder why Cameron promised to support the campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get the reforms that he wanted, when having received very little in the way of those concessions, he now is firmly in the remain camp and making predictions of massive economic upheaval if we left. The public aren't stupid and don't believe that we gained anything of value from these negotiations. They can also see that despite the referendum question rumbling on for years and only needing to be held before the end of 2017, there seems to have been an unseemly rush to hold it before the end of June. The electorate will realise that they are being rushed into this because of the immigration crisis which will take off big time in the Summer. Although the Labour Party excuse their lack of input into the Referendum as liking to sit back and watch the Conservative Party arguing against each other, they are the Opposition Party. If they wished to be considered as an electable alternative government, it is about time that their leadership stopped sitting on their hands and started to state their case. People who are prepared to vote a particular way because they don't like the personalities or politics of the main protagonists on either side are shallow. The referendum is one of the most important events in most peoples' lifetimes and will influence our future for the next few decades. As such, it is far too important to allow personal animosities towards individuals or party allegiances to cloud the vote.

You're right, an event like that does not discriminate against people on grounds of religion, or politics. This is an event that has a real chance of happening judging from what has been said and it is a shame to see that there are those who don't have enough humanity in them to give a sh*t about it.

I can't see a thread on this, but there is potential for a cataclysmic catastrophe if this Dam gives way as engineers suggest it might well do. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/02/mosul-dam-engineers-warn-it-could-fail-at-any-time-killing-1m-people

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/03/swiss-parliament-withdraws-bid-to-join-eu/ Good for them.

Is it really that simple? So simple in fact that people produce 400 page documents to outline the procedure that should be followed after a Brexit. And then there is the debate about who holds the aces and who has most to lose from making free trade between us difficult and expensive when we are the largest export market for many of the EU countries. So I very much doubt that Europe will be in the commanding position that you envisage if we left and despite the bluster, the German Car manufacturers will not carry out those threats to pull out of production in this country and risk a large fall in their sales here as reprisals from an angry British public

It's all a game of poker, threats, fear, posturing, until as you say if Brexit came to pass, the cold wind of reality would blow and they would have to consider the implications of cutting off their nose to spite their face. My devious mind causes me to suspect that although they must realise that moving production out of the UK will undoubtedly lose them considerable sales here, the other side of the coin is that they could do a Ford and move production to Turkey for the cheaper labour costs like they did with their Transit Vans, financed with a low interest loan from the EU Bank. I seem to recall Ford also making noises recently about moving production out of the UK if we left the EU. Perhaps our Brexit is just the excuse they need to justify it.

Winnersaint alluded to the right-leaning press supporting the leave campaign. Although I agree with you that there are supporters to either position in the referendum from across the political divide, there is a broadly predominant left wing support for the remain camp and right wing support for the leave camp. When the referendum was held under Harold Wilson's government, it was the other way round. Equally the remain lobby are attempting to categorise the support profile for each group in terms of age and employment background in disparaging terms which the electorate will not appreciate. But on the other hand, the conclusion reached by this profiling is that the leave camp are more likely to go and vote than the remainers. Lord Rose doesn't seem to have covered himself in glory, making a few slip-ups. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12180580/EU-referendum-Lord-Rose-makes-his-most-remarkable-blunder-yet.html

Poor Timmy, having to resort to fanciful notions that I would be upset because of people who can't be bothered to delve a little deeper into the reasons why the Brexit camp wish to leave their beloved EU. His response shows me that he is a bit miffed that he claimed that there was nobody on the Leave side who had prepared a case for what would happen if we left and now that there are indeed well thought out plans for how we would go about it, he is dismissive of it on some petty grounds that it was not written by one of the cabinet ministers in the Brexit camp. He cannot conceive the possibility that these ideas might be well known by them (Nigel Lawson being connected with them, for example) and that they are restricted in getting over the message by column inches in the newspapers or minutes on TV programmes, so they are reduced to sound bites, much as Cameron and the other merchants of doom in the stay brigade are. As for the second link, go on, admit it; you found that by looking at the link I put up. Now you are inferring that you already knew of that second link, even though you claimed there was no case for leaving that had been comprehensively explained. It really is a bit rich, Timmy. You're the fruit cake that I've just had.

You're behind the times. The alternative vision that Timmy said could not be presented has been set out if you care to spend some time reading about it. http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation

*Yawn* That article is like a stuck record from the fear purveyors. Have a read of either of the articles that were linked to above to get a much broader perspective of not only the economic aspects, but also all of the other pressing issues that are concerning the electorate. They won't be voting just on the economy. I suspect that immigration and sovereignty are at least as prevalent for many. One only needs to read the first sentence of that little diatribe above to realise that it is complete nonsense. We have been a member for years and I don't see us having had much influence in the decision making of the EU single Market. Even when we threaten to leave, Cameron can hardly get them to offer much that is acceptable by way of reform and it isn't even guaranteed at that. But I agree with you that Economics is not at all an exact science, much of it is theory. Even the two most eminent economists of the last century, Keynes and Friedman didn't agree on much.

Now all we need is Verbal's critique on both of these works. Up to now he has unfailingly labelled anything supporting the leave campaign as the work of swivel-eyed buffoons, despite declaring himself to be sat on the fence.

Take your time. I think that you will find however that it answers the criticisms of those accusing the leave lobby of not being able to furnish their reasons for leaving and their plans for the future outside of the EU. A cursory glance of a few of the chapters tells me that it goes into considerable depth on pretty well every aspect of our membership of the EU and what our alternative arrangements would be. And there are footnotes crediting the sources of the data acquired to back the arguments, so it is very thoroughly researched. Although you label the authors as being serial anti-EU, as far as I could see, it does argue sensibly from a perspective of assessment of both the pros and the cons before concluding that we would be better off in the longer term by leaving.

Where you raise a number of issues about the whys and wherefores about a very involved and convoluted process, naturally this cannot be covered in any depth in a newspaper article; it would take something more akin to a book. Well, here we are, here's chapter and verse on the whole history of how we came to join the EU, the Treaty changes, how successive governments reneged on promises of a referendum, reasons why we would be better off outside the EU, how we would go about making alternative trading arrangements with the EU and the rest of the World. http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf Here is an alternative vision that you claimed the leave lobby could not provide. Naturally it is only one vision, in the same way that there are other visions for the future of Europe, like whether a member becomes totally integrated into a federal United States of Europe, or seeks to halt the process as it currently stands.

You talk as if there are no vested interests on the Stay campaign side, those aboard the EU gravy train, the recipients of subsidies and grants, consultancy fees, etc. many of whom are paid with British taxpayers money put into the kitty and returned to us by this route. We can vote out those of our MPs who do not represent our wishes, but we are pretty impotent when it comes to doing the same to our lords and masters in Brussels.

How about you trying to debate what he says, instead of employing deflection avoidance tactics. Moonraker - How about you also dissecting the views of this particular economist and pointing out the areas where these other economists' views prove him to be wrong in his assertions. Just because he is a long-term eurosceptic and there is a majority of other economists espousing the view that economically we are better off staying as a member of the EU, doesn't make them right. They mostly take the view that our economy will suffer because our trade with the EU will be subject to tariffs and that we will still be subjected to free movement of peoples and the rules that bind us now. This is an economist who sets out arguments why those things will not necessarily be factors, whilst at the same time pointing out many benefits of leaving the strait-jacket of rules imposed on us by the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Please feel free to point out where these other economists demolish those arguments.

Here are some very compelling and cogent argument by an economist explaining why we would be better off outside the EU economically. I await your counter-arguments explaining where he has got it all wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/29/brexit-scares-over-jobs-and-investment-are-simple-fallacies/

Exactly. Just because the remain camp can point to the recent past and claim that the EU is the devil you know, they cannot claim that the future is also assured to be more of the same. Events during the past five years prove that the next five can be just as if not more unpredictable.

Beaten by the better team who showed more desire, won the tactical battle and who had more chances, which they took well. Forster shouldn't be anywhere the England goal for at least another couple of years. He didn't manage to get the ball clear for their first and should have come to claim the ball when they scored the second. Our midfield looked a lot stronger in the second half when we changed it around, but it seems that had Wanyama been available, or had Clasie played, we might have been able to have had more control. Mane's value must be plummeting and what with Pelle out of sorts and Austin well contained, we never looked like scoring. Bournemouth did to us what we did to Arsenal, closed us down, ran their socks off, and didn't allow us to settle until late in the game, when they were still a threat. Two losses in a row and the momentum is lost once more. We desperately need a win against Sunderland to get back on track.

Five years ago there was no refugee crisis coming out of the Middle East, no ISIS, no mass economic migration here from Bulgaria and Romania. Five years is a long time in European and indeed World politics and it was worrying that Merkel was bargaining with the Turkish President over reducing Turkey's wait to join the EU in return for their help in stemming the flow of refugees through Turkey.