colhint

I know all new Villa players have to sing a song to the team, I reckon Mile will do the thunderclap

Chris Hoy tweeted every member of GB cycling team has won a medal. Phenoninal

correct decision the guy on the motorbike has to leave on 2,5 laps he went over

the other thing with our location and there's is it's not just the number of teams, in the area, but 5 of them have won a major trophy since newcastle did

what did the slug say to the snail Big Issue

Absolutely love it. I don't play it but my lad is walking about 12 miles a week

So you wouldn't vote on any climate change issues then, if you were not going to be around

Sorry I have to disagree. If someone from Pakistan wants to come here, now we should be able to say we either want and need you, welcome. Or we we don't need you yet, sorry. It used to be the case where we would like you to come but we expect x amount of EU citizens this year and we have to accommodate them first.

but the same list shows there were just short of 8 million people in the 15 24 age range, so I would guess that equal numbers in each age range give or take about 5%. So just short of 900,000 each age. Now then I think that's near enough 5.1m eligible to vote. but only 36% did, if that was up to 83% as in the pensioners case, that would have meant an extra 47% of them voting or about 2.4m. With 73% reamain they would have had an extra 1.1m votes, just short of a majority. If you do the same calculation for anyone under 40 the remain would have won well

we have a falsehood here. I have been laughed at, told my opinions are incorrect, totally wrong and even had pictures with a serious racist slant against my posts. I have only ever argued about the resource of the UK, food water and land etc. and how undemocratic the EU is, not all on this thread but most of them were. It got to the point were I thought it was best not to post.

Am I? the president of the council and the president of the commission, neither of whom are elected, are telling us of the terms of the split, without consulting the elected members. could they raise interest rates without consulting them, could they bomb russia if they thought it was best for the EU?

are you talking about Junker, who today said we want you out soon, or Tusk who said out is out forever. Just when did they put it to the other states to vote on this, because the commission doesn't meet to discuss it until next week. Do you think he will then put it to the elected MEP's who will vote on it, and if 1 member state says no I want more time to discuss it, they will be overridden, he will just say no bugger off they are out. Isn't that what the EU is against for our protection

would you not say then cyrusr, given the money, access, establishment, politics etc the remain had in their favour, that the leave campaign were either smarter or more intelligent

reading the in out thread I reckon a fair few on this site will be on Cyanide and tonic tonight

This bit really bothers me, I have read that a trade agreement could take years, I think the Canadian agreement still isn't finished after about 8 years. So this week Donald Tusk has said Out is out no coming back, and Today Junkers has said Today that exit must begin as soon as possible. Does that mean they are overriding all EU Protocol. Surely a decision as this should be debated. The commission meets next week. What then, do they take it to the Meps, to discuss and debate. What if some Greek, Austrian or Finland say hang on a minute I want to veto this and have a proper debate, and I want a couple of months to discuss the timetable. Or can the commission just say without debate that's it that's what we are doing. If the Scots have a referendum and vote out , could the prime minister just say ok I want you out next month.

my ex used to work for British Sugar. Her role was to dispose of the surplus. British sugar had a quota of about 1m Tonnes PA. They got £625 per Tonne from the EU. If you fell behind or couldn't meet your quota, you lost the shortfall for good. It wen't to another company, not necessirly British. So in The case of British sugar they aimed to make 1.3 m tonnes, in case of a bad crop one year. So her job was to sell the surplus outside the the EU. She sold lots of it in the middle east. Where she got about £220 per tonne. Big difference in price there. It applied to most foodstuffs too

I actually think we have some of the best strikers. I know Lewandoski is good but I think we have better than France Germany and Italy, which is not to be sneered at

possibly and only possibly Guzan

The word "could" It's not a bad word on it's own, but the way it's used in the referendum debate and politics in general. One side say something like leaving could cause 50,000 job losses. but it might not. Coming out could create 50, 000 jobs, the other side say 500,000 immigrants could come in, but on the other hand 500, 000 could leave. Or the economy could improve, or the economy could get worse. Or we could all be following the debate and not notice that mars has exploded, it could happen. I could be reading a newspaper about the debate and I could spill my cup of tea all over me, of course I could, but I could be reading about Raheem stirling being picked for Englands' next game and still spill it. Could is a crap word

Belgium need a Des Bremnner

i know there is lots we could do, I'm saying we should be doing them now, if we are planning for an increase. but I don't see any planning at all

I'm not against immigration. I'm against immigration without planning for the consequence. If we need 1m more people, Someone should say we need about 10 new hospitals the size of the QE we will need about 100 new schools and the staff to go with it. Roads, buses and the like also. Then we have to say this is how it's going to be paid for. It would be nice to think google and starbucks will foot the bill, but as they have been getting away with it for decades under both governments I don't think they will lose much sleep. So then it's raise tax. ok reasonable question, what would you think would be the maximum number of people England could support. in land and infrastructure. Because it is my belief that at some point the hosepipe ban wont just be a hosepipe ban, it will be a limit to how much water a person can use.

That's only by choice, we like to eat italian food so import tinned tomatoes, we like peppers in our food so import them, we like salami so import it. We like tea and coffee so import them. The list is endless. More importantly we need farmland for our basics, bread meat and veg. I'm sure you are right on water, we don't have the problems they do in Africa. But we do have an unusual geology in the uk. Huge amounts of rainfall just run off the land and back to the sea. And as the water collects in different areas they have different geological qualities of their own. It makes it impossible to have a complete interconnecting water supply. Birmingham collects it's water from wales, it couldn't just connect to a pipe to send some to the South East if they were short.

yet we are the most densely populated country in europe. That countryside you are talking about is farmland. Now the most basic needs in life are food and water. Would you not think a reasonable assumption be that the country needs farmland to feed it's population? Or should we just import all our food? If that's the case you may as well disband the military, anyone wanting to attack us will just starve us. Then we need water. For 26 of the last 30 years there has been a hosepipe ban in some form in England. Now we have a few more million who need water, at what point do we fail to provide enough water for the population? The thing is you can't just magic up water, we only have a limited resource.

Spains population is falling according to worldbank It's not just numbers of people though, its the density, Spain has 93 people per sq/kl we have 267. why do you think property is so expensive here. It's because there is so little land