Do we really want great institutions like the London School of Economics and Imperial College to be effectively closed to our own young people because they can't afford to live in London? I hope the universities themselves will agree that would be a terrible prospect - which is why I hope in time they'll also come to value and respect the concept of the Student Living Rent.
Campaigners also need to recognise that there are smaller family businesses who will be affected by the campaign against sugar too. Right now, the balance between public cynicism and the ability of business to make profits is nicely balanced. It's perfectly balanced. Let's leave it as it is.
I understand that the 'in' campaign feels the need to scaremonger on these issues; after all, it is their primary tactic on the economy. Is there any substance to their claims? I don't see it.
There are plausible arguments on both sides. But one that should be retired is that it would cause major damage to our exports if the UK left. It would not. We import five goods for every three we export. It seems improbable that our EU partners would wish to disrupt trade to one of its largest markets. The UK is not Norway.
Charles Dickens may have been referring to London and Paris when he wrote 'The Tale of Two Cities' in 1859, but today he may have considered The Tale ...
Our current economic system faces many problems. In 2007 we went through a major crash, for reasons way beyond most people's understanding. Interest rate setting, the Libor scandal, the subprime mortgage scandal and many other such activities, demonstrated a calamitous manipulation of the economy in their own interests by a bunch of 'financial experts' in suits.
Imagine working somewhere where you not only had a say over your own work, but could direct the organisation as a whole? A business where you had not just employee ownership, but employee control, a real stake?
One way or another, as China immerses itself in its New Year celebrations, the Year of the Monkey will be a critical one for business. We'll have to wait and see what lies in store.
Britain has its own proud tradition of fighting tyranny, of protecting liberty and democracy both at home and abroad. For us, Europe has always been about trade. For the continent, it is about so much more. This does not mean either side is wrong. But the European Project is not right for us.
None of the promised changes put forward by the Prime Minister in either his much-vaunted Bloomberg speech, or in the 2015 and 2010 General Election manifestos, are going to be fulfilled. The letter confirms what we had all expected. The renegotiation reminds me of the closing scenes of Macbeth: "full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
The Chancellor should have stuck to his guns, and done the fair thing for the British people - regulate and tax the banks properly. As it is, the Bank of England & Financial Services Bill signals a major retreat by the Chancellor from what was until now his own policy. Thus, whilst he stands firmly behind his failed austerity (National Debt up 60% in his six years in charge), he is going soft on banks.
It must have sounded so simple in the meeting. £130 million. Big number. It'll look great on a headline, and show our commitment to paying tax in the UK. Let's get it out there. Give the BBC an exclusive and run it in the broadsheets as well.
When I visited the Rutherfords I promised them that if Labour won the election, cancelling the bedroom tax would be the first thing I did. When I saw the exit polls at 10pm on 7 May I thought of Warren and his grandparents. I felt we had let them down and I feared what another five years of Tory government would mean for them and the other 500,000 households paying the bedroom tax. On Tuesday, Paul and Sue got a rare piece of good news. They took the government to The Court of Appeal - and won, with the Judge concluding that the bedroom tax is unlawful because it discriminates against disabled children and in a separate case against the victims of domestic violence.
So yes cooperation is challenging, joint decision making sometimes seems a pain. But the Britain Sir Michael and I both love has always had the confidence and courage to be outward looking, collaborative, forward thinking and a strong advocate of free trade. We will soon have the chance to prove that these great attributes remain.
Last summer George Osborne stood up in Parliament and said - echoing an argument we've made so many times before - that Britain needs a pay rise. We will hold him to that, because it can't be acceptable to create a system where so many of the young are locked into poverty, where low-paid workers are told they're earning a 'living wage' when they're still unable to make ends meet, and where contractors paid for out of our taxes use government spin to justify low pay for our people.
While the contribution the Creative Industries make to the UK economy is tremendous, to paraphrase Jessie J, it's not (just) about the money. They play an equally, if not more, important role in helping define us and shaping our national identity. "Britishness" is an intangible thing, something that cannot be explained in figures, or measured in fiscal terms.