jimsleftfoot

Yes - My feeling is that Cameron didn't want it but put it on the table to appease his own party, in the belief that they wouldn't get a majority and any party sharing power would veto it straight away.

Payments for every 10 first team appearances he makes up to 100 appearances. A potential maximum of £1.3m in the PL. Also potentially a 20% sell on relating to transfers before 23 years of age and a 5% loan fee (conditions attached).

I hope people make such decisions based on what is said and not merely who says it (though Gove to me is equally reprehensible).

Not quite, the government were against this and thought it would damage the economy but it was debated as a result of a petition getting 100k + signatures. I'll admit that I'm not sure how it turns into a referendum but it was pretty much shot down.

Might as well

Seems to be some sort of loan or mortgage agreement between Brassbank and OAFC. Is the money being called in?

I agree, they will give us a deal. But there is a world of difference between the deal we want and the deal we will get. We're sticking two fingers up at them, its not in their interests to see the UK doing well out of a Brexit.

Someone raised the same point with Guardian's David Conn last night and he responded that many of the rank and file officers were involved and they also gave evidence at the inquest against the fans. Not everyone should be tarred with the same brush and some individual officers did help the fans but it was not just SYP leadership who are to blame. As an organisation, it's fair to say the police were at fault.

As I understand, the defence lawyers at the inquest repeated long discredited slurs against the fans and this is the primary reason why Compton was suspended. As for levels of intoxication amongst fans, probably the most important thing to say is that it's quite acceptable today for people to drink and be drunk at many different events (up to certain levels) and for it not to cause major issues and so I can only think the point he is trying to make is the same 2+2=5 crap that we've already heard. I quite agree that the culture within football didn't help leading up to Hillsborough, but there should have always been a greater duty of care in looking after the fans, the families and children attending football. Is it any surprise that with greater planning, health and safety etc. that a similar issue hasn't occurred since? Fan behaviour didn't lead to conditions at Hillsborough, the authorities chose that pathway.

90 mins was great. I won letter of the week having a go at Ian Stott and Graeme Sharp but got told off by my mum for swearing. I also wrote a rather tongue in cheek letter comparing Ian Ormondroyd to God that was published. The equivalent of an Internet forum in the mid 90's.

The evidence points to the crowd behaving as you would expect a crowd to behave in such circumstances. It means that there could have been some ticketless fans and people who were drunk, but nothing beyond what was normally expected and could have been dealt with.

Fair enough, I think it sounded better in my head that one. I can't say the Tories are my choice of government, but I think Cameron/Osborne are more middle of the road than the rest of the party. Osborne for example, has continually missed his spending cuts targets. Perhaps because he doesn't actually believe in them? He's an interventionist, he likes his projects like HE and Science and hopefully the Northern Poorhouse/Poorhouse. He has links to Manchester and Manchester has benefitted as a result. However, arguably the anti-EU Tory view is movement is about opposing big government. Post-Brexit, more control would be given to what is the new Tory party (minus Cameron and Osborne). Will they cut harder, how will deal with the North with Osborne no longer our champion? What will happen to the NHS, public services etc? They could do a lot of damage in the 8+ years they have probably got. Brexit could be vote for a government we never voted for and we might not be able to vote them out for a long time.

A bit like what happens to the North and this current government. Incidently, if we leave, Osborne will be out of a job and our only link to Tory investment will leave and that will probably be that.

Rotterdam effect is true but it means at its lowest, it could be 46% exports to the EU but there is a 4% upwards margin of error so it's likely to be higher but it's hard to tell accuratley.

Because we have to pay in anyway to get access to the free market. Norway for example pay slightly less than we currently do per capita.

Incorrect. Each country puts forward a commissioner chosen by the elected government of that nation (and so representative of that elected governments views). They can propose law but it is adopted by the European Parliament which is made up of voted for MEP's.

On that basis the UK will get walked over by anyone. How about we assert ourselves and get involved. If the EU is so controlling, why doesn't the media report on it in the same way as it does with Parliament? We could vote in MEP's based on policy rather than protest. Maybe the 'wife' will have a new found respect for GB then.

If the argument for leaving is clearer and stronger further down the line, im sure a further referendum will be demanded and we could leave at that point.

Person is employed to write report, uses remuneration to buy goods and services, other people are employed as a result and so on...

Well UKIP does have core right wing Tory ideals at its heart.

So the net EU contribution is £8.5 bn which obviously is a big number. However in terms of gross domestic product, it's about 0.45% approx, less than we give in foreign aid (0.7%). As it stands, no one can tell if we will be worse off or better off, but a 0.1% loss or gain in growth is worth £2bn. If this continued over 10 years, that would increase/decrease to £20bn a year (1%) either way. Much more relatively to the current net contribution. Think Tank Open Europe has stated a best case scenario of 1.6% gain by 2030 but more realistically between a 0.8% loss and 0.6% gain. The Centre for Economic performance at the London School of Economics predicts a worse case scenario of between 6.3% and 9.5% reduction and best case a 2.2% loss. The IMF yesterday stated that a Brexit could cause 'severe damage'. The leave response was that IMF has been wrong before (is that a good response to counter doubt with more doubt?) Leaving the EU is a bet and a risk. The vote leave campaign can only offer 'might' and 'could be' which isn't a good reason for changing the status quo in my book. They need to offer a more sound platform and they can't.

I think you should explain that one.

Norway though has the biggest oil wealth fund in the world, a large percentage of its workforce is employed by the state off the back of this.

Rubbish summary mate. I was supporting the notion that the EU is at least partly responsible for peace in Europe and not just NATO as a seperate organisation.

Any such military agreement between countries needs political and diplomatic will. Do you really think NATO can be put in one box and the EU in another?