Sergei Gotsmanov

Shurlock you weren't canvassing for remain in the North East were you? Your style of debate is very warm. If there are 100 plumbing projects and there are 75 plumbers to undertake the work then each job will cost say £125. If suddenly 50 new plumbers arrive and there are 125 plumbers to do the 100 jobs then I would argue that the price of those projects will go down. Do you get that? I would argue, and the majority of the electorate seem to agree with me that this is not the case. They cannot get their children into the local school, they have to wait longer at A&E, their children cannot move out of home etc etc. This is what you would call ground based evidence. You never seem to tackle the core of the issue which is 'unlimited'. That is what people have a problem with. Immigration is a good thing but it is considered reckless to have no checks and balances. Your problem is that you cannot defend the principle of 'unlimited immigration' and just resort to name calling. Go on defend unlimited immigration? I don't mean to worry you Shurlock but there is a danger that by constantly using terminology like 'opportunity set' and quoting high brow economists you will not make yourself look clever, just pretentious. You are unable to recognise that the leave camp was a broad church. The referendum was lost because you lost people like me who think the EU is a good idea badly executed. All it would have taken was for the EU to budge a little on free movement and recognise its flaws and you would won by a landslide.

Who taught you your charm Shurlock - Martin Selmayr? Non EU Immigration can in theory be controlled. If the electorate are unhappy with levels of immigration then they can speak at the ballot box - the only way that you can do that in the EU is to vote for protest parties liken UKIP to represent you among all the growing number of other crackpot protest parties being elected by other countries to the European Parliament. You cannot change it - it is in the rules. Unlimited EU immigration amongst a community with considerable wage disparity is flawed. That is why our population has ballooned since 2004. If your population jumps by 6m then that automatically influences your 'policy set'. I am afraid I don't now what an 'opportunity set' is - maybe I should stay in more and become more familiar with the musings of people like Dani Rodrik. EU migrants put in more than they take out yes but that is down to the million French high earners and others in London not the million and a half unskilled migrants that have pushed down wages and put pressure on housing and services. The evidence that you are looking for about the impact of immigration on peoples lives came in the form of the referendum result. That and the 6m population increase in a decade.

I think if you google it you will see varying figures but you could conclude that if you take both the highest and even the lowest estimates you are indeed correct. It is indeed 'quite a lot'.

Shurlock my old pal I cannot continue to stand by any more. It is a very straightforward answer. The EU's right to free movement and uncontrolled immigration encroaches on all of these - what bigger encroachment on sovereignty can there be than not allowing a country to decide how many people and who comes to live in your country. The EU's inflexibility and insensitivity to immigration will be its undoing. Pandering to big business and not ordinary people has facilitated Brexit and the unpalatable rise of the right wing across Europe. I am afraid there is no EU funded think tank journal for me to quote but you have to just get out more and realise that when your population rises by 6m in little more than a decade people will become anxious. It is simply lazy to label them racists; they are not. Well 85% of them are not.

Great role model great player

Sadly we get the loyalty from players that many of our fans deserve.

Austin has scored goals where ever he goes. He has not been given a chance this season. We would be mad to get rid of him.

Where do people believe we should be as a team based on our catchment area, size and status. When I read threads like this I realise that it is not just a lot of the modern players I am disillusioned with but also many of today's so called supporters.

He has his issues but can be very good. I would imagine he is also very good to have in the dressing room.

Technically I think that goal was taken away from Dodd - outrageously I may add

I think in that team we had Pele, Best and Jesus

Never saw the attitude but wish him well. A fresh challenge will do him good.

It is cut and dried for me. We have finished 8th in the league and had a cup final. The cup final was probably my greatest experience of supporting Saints apart from maybe staying up against Wimbledon. Judged on this I think it is absurd to sack him. We will either appoint a brilliant manager who goes to a bigger club or a useless manager who gets sacked. The only caveat I would have is if some of the senior players do not warm to him and want to get somebody else in.

Thank you for that. Very emotional!

Was Wes Brown the last person to score at the Dell still playing?

He did a good job down the road. I seem to remember that we had to pay a large instalment if he played 30 games and so he got to 29 games and then they would never play him. I don't think he was given a decent crack of the whip.

Liked that. Romeu man of culture.

I expect this is well known but I did not know and now have a Spanish team to follow. http://outsidewrite.co.uk/clubs-got-colours-2-athletic-bilbao/

Well you asked the question and then failed to reply so you can read into it how you want. Anyway Shurlock I am opting out here. You can call me what you want but the way you style your debate on here provides plenty of insight into you.

I pointed out to you on your request why people perceive the EU as being a dictatorship and you opted not to contest it. I also explained what the of a report on the positive impact of immigration on the UK - the one written by the John Van Reenen who it turned out worked for the EU commission. You asked for an answer and did not contest that either.

You either have a free trade deal or you don't. The EU quickly recognised that the only way they can hit us without hurting their trade would be through a Brexit bill and that is why it is the main theme. We will have a lot more flexibility to do our own deals. We are quite a big economy and people really will want to speak to us.

You've opted not to contest what I have said though. That would of course not be the first time.

How long can 27 countries all with different objectives from the negotiations stay united? They are all united on the fact that we should pay out a large exit bill - that must have taken some effort! I am afraid I am going to give up trying to tell you that the EU is not going to compromise its trade with us because it will hurt them as well.

No but nor do the people who suggest there were 'shy leavers' I pointed out that the reason this got bandied about was to excuse the pollsters. I also pointed out that the Leave voters in the referendum were akin to Yes voters in Scotland and were more likely to go on about how great it would be to be out but on the day would vote to stay. This happened in Scotland.

The UK is the single biggest Export market for goods in the world for the EU with a surplus of £60bn. Do you really believe that it is as simple as the EU turning up to the negotiations saying your business means more to you than it does to us. Virtually every market has a surplus with the UK - Germany's was 25billion in 2015 and no market will want to see that surplus diluted. It would be enough to put the Eurozone back into recession for a sustained period. Will they risk that? Of course they recognise that and that is why the only thing they can come up with is a £50bn leaving bill. Created on the back of a fag packet it is just a figure used to scare other countries from leaving. It is in everybody's interest to sort out a deal before our economy and Europe's is seriously damaged.