Anyone with any sense knows that public spending should be cut now and a new set of monetary and tax policies need delivering before we go completely bust, so it's just as obvious Labour is the same old tax and spend party of old with just a change of appearance.

I think it would help us enormously if we withdrew immediately to the EFTA we were once in and start the process of Britain restoring order in its affairs again rather than being held to ransom by 26 and more other ministers, some of which look likely to want us for more than just our money.

This is why I think David Cameron has completely lost the plot when he's shouting at Russia and making overtures on Georgia's membership of NATO which plainly goes hand in hand with EU membership. Scarey or what ?

This is a link to the EU archives.
It shows the history of how the EU Project arose and validates the fact discussions at the time were kept secret even from parliaments both French and British.
http://www.ena.lu/

This is a link to secret minutes of meetings between Heath and Pompidou in 1971 which show a stated intention by both of them to keep their agreements secret from British and French parliaments and also secret from Italy and Germany and from America.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/heath-eec…

I hope they will be published somewhere more public because I had a lot of difficulty finding them.

There's another issue I'd like to give an opinion about and that is David Cameron's recent visit ot Georgia. This problem was caused by Saashkavili's invasion ( albeit in his own country ), of an ex-soviet oblast – an autonomous region which has de facto independence. He did it with tanks and those tanks were commandeered by the Russian Army, thus proving the guy broke a pact of non-use of force with Russia.

David Cameron has launched a vitriolic attack against Russia in defence of a non-allied country and a non-EU member and all he's done is agreed with a country which hates Russia and calls the west to invade it. Is he mad ? Doesn't he know the British people do NOT hate Russia and watch more news than the propaganda peddled out on "British" news – which incidentally shows Bush more than it does Brown ?
I very much doubt the British public will support David Cameron's position on this, and it has shown the UK as being unhealthily aligned to USA foreign policy as much as it is its economic policies enshrined within the Maastricht Treaty !

That's another thing.
Our economic policies are Milton Friedman's – they are pure monetary policies which permit no interference to produce first a benefit for society itself. It must enalrge itself to sustain itself and that's why we have globalization and enlargement occurring. Get this place back to "social economics" please before we end up HAVING to enlarge ourselves into countries which don't like our enlargement programme or our politics of sucking up to America.

Come on – lets have a real democracy here and a return of Great Britain please before we all go berserk.

I agree with most of what you say except the EU was never even on the agenda in 1975 and we have therefore never "decided to keep us in EU by referendum", had there been an honest question about whether we ever wanted to be part of an ever bigger political union, rather than the simple trading arrangement offered under the guise of the EEC, then I have no doubt the vote would have been a resounding NO 33 years ago , as it would today.

In fact the most honest question for a referendum is do we want to remain in the EU as it is today, or go back to what we actually thought we were being asked to vote for in 1975.

Let's face it the only portion of the "3 million" jobs that Brown bangs on about that really clinch the deal are the Brussels jobs for the boys that failed senior politicians swan off into once the British public have got fed up of them. Which, sadly, is why I suspect that not too many of your senior colleagues hold such radical ideas as you put forward on here.

The basic question is which part of the economy do you wish them to be employed in? The socialised economy or the non-socialised economy. On the basis that the non-socialised bit – private – pays for the socialised – public – bit; when the going gets tough, you have to accelerate the private bit and throttle back on the public bit.

The luxury of a large public sector, with lots of frippery like "five-a-day outreach community officers", are over for the near future; we can't afford them. We will need a massive increase in private sector capacity and productivity, to maintain our current lifestyle. I don't see this happening, particularly with a trade union financed socialist government.

I reckon that each public sector employee costs the private sector about £100, 000 in pay; pensions; purchases and transfer payments they make to others. Some of it worth while but a lot where it would be difficult to calculate the added value. We have to reduce the cost of the public sector back to about 33% of GDP, rather than the current 44%. Regardless of being in or out of the EU.

A bit out of date now but see; http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/c…

"The Governor yesterday was right to warn the government not to relax its controls over public borrowing"

Can you assist me, what controls is he speaking of exactly?

The two rules re level of borrowing in any year and the stock of debt as a proportion of GDP