So what you're saying is none of the Sun "readers" make it past Page 3, eh?

Wonder if they've considered putting out a braille version...
}:-]

Ok I'll accept that may be correct,but what of it?Can't we do that and increase exports to India,why does there have to be a ceiling?...oh I forgot the EU is a protectionist cartel that doesn't like free trade.

Why is the MSM in denial? It has surely been made plain over many years now that the EU, not Europe, is the problem simply because it works as it was designed to work. It is a bureaucrats idea of how to run one big state, no democracy, no accountability and protectionist. Is that too difficult to work out, after all, yourself and Mr. Booker have obviously done the homework and written the conclusion, what more is needed? Maybe as in the book I am reading at present, we should adapt Luther's attitude. He pored over the Bible and worked out the meaning of every word and phrase and then attacked from a position of strength. He had the same problem that we now have, a long established Church claiming to be the only source of information and having total authority over everyone, including Emperors and Kings.
There does seem to be an unholy alliance spewing out the same old tired lies at the moment, one would think that they are up to something, something definitely not in our interest.

British companies employ xxx,xxx people in USA, xxx,xxx Britons work for USA companies in Britain.

And not even part of the same country or trade organisation. So how does this state of affairs manage to exist Mr Osborne?

It's very difficult for people to accept that the EU is an all or nothing proposition. The whole point if it is to create a single European state, as you've described and if you are a member, that's what you are signed up to.
There's no happy medium and no thus far but no farther, so repatriation of powers is just tosh. However, the idea of a compromise is very seductive.

The other thing is that with all the talk of jobs and trade, it's a political project to experiment with a novel form of government, and to inflict this without asking by deception and creating crises to which the answer is more Europe for fear of something worse. Avoiding the political nature of the thing by constantly talking about economics is the essence of the lie we were told in the early 70s.

I question whether Cameron understands any of this. He just doesn't do Europe and doesn't want it to be a nuisance in his little world of being called PM.

I'd guess a lot of people commenting on the EU haven't really grasped these points. I also get the impression that a lot of Telegraph journalists are pretty much in bed with the Conservative party and have had a few favours called in for them to bolster the reform line to encourage a favourable reception of Cameron's speech, which is why we have the about turns.

Graham,

Drivel like Osborne's outpouring can be expected when the Conservatives don't have an honest, coherent policy they can enunciate. They have an actual agenda to stay in the EU at any cost which informs their actions, and a fanciful reform and repatriation story for the suckers, but the problem is that some of the suckers are senior Tories. They just can't explain simply, honestly, and without vapid nonsense about 'not shouting from the sidelines' what their policy is, probably because they don't really know, and so it's no wonder senior people can come out with all sorts of ridiculous and contradictory things.