Sergei Gotsmanov

Cameron has all to win from an election because ultimately he took the right action.

So you genuinely believe that the Italians and then the Spanish debt burden which continues to spiral will not be an issue in a years time? You think that Politically having your budgets controlled by essentially Germany will not be a massive issue in future. You also fail to address the fundemental flaw of the Euro. Sadly you are as bad as the Eurosceptics that seem to be ecstatic at the result of the use of the veto which means that nobody wins. What else could Cameron do? Get screwed now or wait for the foreplay to buy a bit of time.

Noone is laughing this end Verbal. Who bails out the Italians and the Spanish? How do you overcome the fundmental flaw that markets are issuing debt in a currency they cannot control.

Sometimes Verbal you remind me of comical Ali. You talk of Greece defaulting but seem to ignore the fact that Italy and Spain will be the catalyst for the downfall of the Euro. All that this treaty has achieved is to put into place future defensive mechanisms against over spending and has ignored the core debt issue and even the fact that the Greek and Iatlian debt level continues to rise. You also seem to not understand that if the Euro survives with just the stronger economies like Germany then the value of the Euro will jump and undermine their export ability and they will not like that. At least Osbourne is trying to address our debt. As for the city, you are probably right and that is something that can only be addressed by a future re-negotiations. We must carry some weight in a future Europe because we basically pay so much into the pot and take so little out. What could Cameron do? A large chunk of our economy has been threatened why not try to support it. Why do the Germans or the French not harmonise alcohol duty rates to discourage border trade? They bat for themselves just as much as we do; their politicians have to get re-elected after all. What are your thoughts on the implications for democracy in Europe? Do you not think that in future there will be massive repercussions among the peoples of countries who cannot make their own decisions?

There are no winners from this

There you go again running us down. We are far more likely to return to the top table if we can make ourselves economically competitive and we can do that far more easily without the burdens of EU regulations. Do you really believe that the French and the Germans are not acting in their own interests?

You are very naive if you think that everyone else is not thinking of their own national interest.

Why are you so obsessed with running us down. It is not about being a world power it is about what is best for our economic prosperity.

We would all vote for a trade agreement but the problem comes when we use the flexibility to become more competitive. The EU will never accept that.

Rather patronising to us. We were mistaken in not joining the Euro then Andy. Whose cock up was the Euro? Do you feel that the new Europe is a step foprward for democracy? This treaty was put together in a hurry to patch up the Euro, which as a concept remains fundementally flawed and ultimately doomed. Is it wise to throw are hand in with countries that have been run like Portsmouth football club. How do you think the people in markets around Europe will respond when they endure proper austerity measures essentially imposed by the Germans.

Well we can't or nuke each other and we share some of our bigger boats with our friends the French

Love that so much. The referee was outrageous.

Cheers - what time?

Where is it exactly? How big are the pitches? When would games be played?

Although nearly, luckily we do not live in your Gestapo like world where contacting the secret police because somebody expresses an opinion you do not like is the norm. Most of us can turn round and say 'what an arsehole'.

Freedom of speech; somebody says something stupid and we can just call him a nob without calling the police.

I would argue that an enthusiast in history would develop his own though process without the influence of his lecturers.

If a scientist says that the big happened 3billion years ago or that a dinosaur is 3m years old people today are more willing to believe it. If Pontious Pilot existed then it is pretty likely that Jesus did. Muslims belived he existed but was not the son of God but just a prophet and that because the new Testament was written afterwards his presence was exploited. The context seems to be right. No serious historian would rule out that he existed but lets face it at what point in history before cameras and artists can we conclude that anybody existed.

Did you actually study history? Your powers of analysis are somewhat under developed - lets start with the impact of the spread of Christianity on the Roman Empire, or maybe when the Vikings discovered Christianity, what about the crusades, the power of the Church in the Middle Ages, the consequences of the reformation. What do you think children had read to them everyday, what do you think they first read? What about the role of religion in the empire and Gladstone's faith influencing his politics. What about Ireland? What about Gordon Brown and his moral compass? Even now it is a political issue and that is why Gove rather grandly is providing Bibles with a foreward from him. You do not think then that the Bible has probably had more influence on the direction of our nation than any other single factor. How does your science explain emotion, love, spiritualism? I would suggest that the first rule of science is to not rule out anything. Religion can be a great force for good when it is not exploited for the wrong reasons. By the way you come across as if you are shouting. Rather sad.

One of the most influential historical documents that has helped to shape how history has panned out in the last two thousand years and that intellectual heavyweight from Colchester announces that it is purely a work of fiction. Science changes.

and sent your jobs to Asia

Well I am not qualified to say but as far as I understood it CofE schools outperform others. As a result they are often over subscribed. Personally I think it is a red herring and don't like the way that they are portrayed as somehow being wicked for brainwashing children. I suppose I went to a 'faith' school with a lot of others and none of us came out like Billy Graham. I just had a respect for religion and people's right to practice it be it CofE, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. I like the values they promote.

Seems strange to condemn faith schools that are often over subscribed and outperform their non faith counterparts. Perhaps more energy should be diverted to understanding why they are better. If people want to send their children to faith schools what business is it of other people; there is clearly a demand for them and they pay their taxes. It strikes me that it is more about people hating and a bizarre insecurity that people are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Good news. Hopefully the middle name will have a Saints connection!

Thanks Dune and Turkish. Have agreed a deal in principle.