Sergei Gotsmanov

I think that ultimately the Brexit bill will be the key tool used by negotiators to discourage others from leaving the EU. A sizeable sum will be quite a deterrent for others to leave and that will give more flexibility to ensure that existing trade is not disrupted. Nobody will win a trade war and if they are pragmatic the EU will know that.

Should have played Fabrice and ignored the 6-1 defeat at Highbury!

We could sell out three times over I would think. I would probably know of 50 people who want tickets but cannot get them.

I remember black market tickets for cup final were £300 in the Arsenal end and a £1000 for the Saints end in 2003. I think you have to consider the fact that if everyone bought tickets in the first week the system could not cope

I was not good on Brendan Rogers but I like Klopp. I cannot get the image of Liverpool fans clapping Matt when he scored a good goal in the 90's out of my head. I respected them for that.

Did Craig Maskell score another one after Liverpool in February 1994? Franny only scored one goal for us.

He seems to have a lot of affection for Saints from what I read about Sam. I would suspect that it is agents trying to get a better deal on the table.

Loved it. Referee in fairness had a nightmare!

I think that hinges on just how much of a stake she maintains. I like her and really hope that she keeps a controlling interest and not the 15% that has been touted.

I would be disappointed if he didn't if only to support the team

Thanks Marc. I suppose it is a Wednesday night.

How many have we sold?

I know I want to believe he is OK but I was encouraged to see him at 7.16m though the match day uncovered. He was not limping at all and if he had broken his foot I would expect some response.

As we are pretty aligned in terms of wages and standard of living so should not be a problem. Better than the current flawed system.

Good luck Monk with all that. I thought for some reason that Egil had trained in law

It does not tackle the key concept of 'unlimited' immigration, the inability to put a cap on how many people can enter the country and the subsequent implications for population growth It fails to address the future risk of benefit tourism and how vulnerable our welfare system is to abuse It does not tackle the extra cost of funding the infrastructure needed for a acceleration in population It does not address the social impact on certain communities with a sudden influx of workers Your people skills are not getting any better.

I am pointing out that the report you quote was a political document written and published at a point that was designed to intervene in favour of remain vote in the referendum - it makes some convincing arguments but also neglects to address key issues in the debate. How many reports do you read that feel it is necessary to distance themselves from the institutions they support to make their points more valid. If you are going to rely on them to mould your argument than you should expect people to point out that the authors and the publisher have a vested interest. You should adopt a more balanced diet of reading and maybe as GM pointed out you may start making more accurate predictions post Brexit.

It had its place in the debate but I think it should have declared the fact that it was written by Europhiles, released by the fervently remain LSE and published at the time to have most impact on the referendum. It was a political document, which is fine but it should be exposed as such. The toe curling protests at the beginning declaring that it is only partly funded by the EU discredit it further - one author even embarrassingly declares that he does not support the Euro and never did. What has that got to do with it.

and I would add that your paper was published in May 2016 just before the referendum. That would further undermine its impartiality.

I would maintain that if you ask people who back one side to write a report then it will lose some of its integrity. Maybe my rhetoric about EU funding was a little Daily Mail, you are obviously better qualified than me to say but LSE backed Remain vocally and as I understand it is funded by the EU. I can appreciate that questioning the ESRC's independence would be offensive to you. I understand that there is a difference between having a bias in opinion within an organisation and that organisation having an agenda in its research findings.

All the sources factually incorrect apart from yours which was written by Europhiles for an outspoken institution supporting remain.

Not on this scale https://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

They are funded by the EU.

What they lied on their CVs as well Shurlock! Google them I took that from their CVs! You are very naïve to just read one side of the story Shurlock. I read a number of sources and then make up my mind. Have you read 'light up and Live' a paper on smoking by Phillip Morriss or 'Topping up' by William Grant? Its changed my life.

Well shall we have a little look at the authors then; John Van Reenen – ‘Advisor to Chief Economist of DG Competition (since 2003), European Commission’ Jonathan Wadsworth - Research Fellow: Institute fur Zukunft Arbeit, (IZA), Bonn 2000- is that the same European University? Gianmarco Ottaviano - Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Bruegel, Brussels, Belgium So as they are all stakeholders in the EU; yes they would say that.