For Greece, and Spain, it's not just a question of radical spending cuts and grinding deflation for years -- though that would be bad enough, and probably unsustainable in political terms. No. It's worse than that. Even to hold steady and to service their existing debt burden, they need economic growth. But the deflation and spending cuts they are required to implement will cause their economies to shrink. Default looms. There's no way out.

In Spain, regional authorities blame the government, and vice versa. The law is interpreted in favour of local developers and land-owners, not property owners. Some of the laws are retrospective.

Property rights and enforceable contracts are not part of the Spanish system. In theory the EU doesn't accept members without a functioning market economy, yet that's exactly what Spain lacks in key respects.

Papandreou blames "speculators" for Greece's problems. But when is a speculator merely a rational economic actor making sensible investment decisions? The problems of Greece arise from government profligacy, from a casual attitude to wages, and inflation, and productivity and competitive¬ness -- and also, to a large extent, from euro membership, which has locked them into a currency union with less reckless and more disciplined economies, like Germany. Greece should recognise its own responsibility for its problems, and not try to blame others.

9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.

10. Oh and we’d be a democracy again.

"As you rightly point out this explanation is provided already by the paying agent and, admittedly, the requirement might appear as an unnecessary duplication. However, the requirement of explanation on the invoice itself is a direct obligation under Article 226(11) of Directive 2006/112/EC (the "VAT Directive") which lays down explicitly that in the case of an exemption, a reference to the applicable provision of the VAT Directive, or to the corresponding national provision or any other reference indicating that the supply of goods or services is exempt, is required on the invoice. Accordingly, this is a Community requirement which pertains to the validity of the invoice itself. The requirement for the paying agent's certification is, in turn, one which arises from Article 41(2) of the Implementing Measures and pertains to the procedure for reimbursement of the relevant costs. As you undoubtedly know, these rules have been decided by the Bureau and the Administration has no alternative than to ensure their implementation. Consequently, both requirements need to be complied with, each for its own reasons".

Britain has been a member of the European Union for a third of a century, enduring all the waste, fraud and red tape that Brussels could imagine.

But what would it be like if one day Britain just said ‘Enough’?

Ten Years On takes us to a world where they have done just that. Dr Rotherham’s new book imagines a future where Britain is free to control its own affairs, to strike its own deals and to decide its own fate.

Our new policy is confused. We have said that now that the Lisbon Treaty is EU law, we are not in a position to repudiate it. Yet we have made a series of proposals which repudiate significant parts of it, and run counter to EU law -- for example the proposed Sovereignty Bill. But as we all know, the supremacy of EU Law is explicit in the Lisbon Treaty. If we accept Lisbon, we accept the supremacy of EU law.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“These results show the stark difference in opinion between the British people and politicians in Brussels. Whilst many MEPs still think the EU is great for everyone, that Britain should join the Euro and that EU rules are sacrosanct, the British public are heading in the opposite direction. People want more referenda, more national disobedience to daft EU rules and a sound rejection of the Euro. Brussels is utterly out of touch with the concerns of the real world.”

The campaign is supported by postcards featuring the ad on one side, and a list of key points on the other: the EU costs £4,700 per household. It will add £350 a year to electricity bills, and £800 a year to a family's food bills. Its employment rules cost jobs and damage our economy. And EU rules drive everything from Post Office closures to fortnightly rubbish collections.

The campaign was launched with a specially commissioned YouGov opinion poll that reveals the British public are deeply opposed to the current relationship between Britain and the EU, and that there is considerable appetite for radical change. The poll also provided the first voting intentions poll for the 2009 Euro elections.

The Czech Republic, which holds the EU presidency, thought it had commissioned work from 27 European artists.

But it turned out to have been entirely completed by Czech artist David Cerny and two associates.

Although history has proven that society at large is not 'makable' and that ideas and governing models are best tried out in open competition, this is far from where the European Union is heading. Instead, its bureaucrats are focusing on making Europe more 'uniform', killing free competition and innovation in the process. The EU is not heading towards a free, open society, but towards a closed, inward looking fortress, controlled by a bureaucratic elite running amok.

1. There are currently 16,980 EU acts in force. Between 1998 and 2007 there has been a net gain of 9,415 EU laws.
2. In 2007, 3,010 EU laws became UK law, while only 993 EU regulations were repealed - a net gain of 2,017 extra laws.
3. The rate of new EU laws has increased to a record speed, with a net gain of over 2,000 new laws in each of the last two years, compared to an annual average net gain of only 942 new laws between 1998 and 2007. Almost half of the extra 9,415 EU laws created in the last ten years have been introduced in 2006 and 2007. Despite EU rhetoric about reducing regulation, it is growing at a record rate.

This is an extraordinary opportunity to question the suitability of EU governance, extraordinary because it has nothing to do with the endemic corruption in the EU machinery or the meddling of the EU in the minutiae of everyday life. It is about something much more important, responsibility. For all their faults (and they are legion) only national governments are held responsible by their people. When a national government says "there is nothing we can do, it's EU law" the answer of the people is not "we blame the EU" it is "we blame you for handing power to the EU". The prosecution of greengrocers for selling bananas by the pound rather than the kilo generates a degree of ire, but nothing compared to what would happen if the government said "we cannot protect your savings, the EU won't let us". They know any such statement would run the risk of the Prime Minister being strung up by the neck. They have no option but to defy the EU and take steps to reassure the people that their money is safe.

The odious Robert Mugabe publicly announced that he would ignore the outcome of the recent Presidential Election in Southern Rhodesia, unless it went his way. The EU meantime is ignoring the outcome of the Irish Referendum on Lisbon, because it did not go their way. Discuss.

There is a clear divide regarding the European project - the people repeatedly vote No when they are asked about continuing integration, but the political class seem dedicated to forcing it through regardless. This cannot continue. The EU spends billions of pounds of our money, and controls an estimated 80% of our new legislation. The taxpaying and voting public cannot continue to be frozen out of the legislative and public policy arena - it is antidemocratic and offensive to the 450 million people who live in EU member states.

There you see the whole game being played out. The "colleagues" write an incomprehensible document and convince the media it is a treaty which cannot be altered. They repeat their lie at every opportunity, which the largely unthinking media report without comment, and then they rely on smart-arsed Guardian journalists to tell us we don't need a referendum.