The enemy within

Following the Budget, Autonomous Mind asked the question: "So where are the 81 Eurosceptic Tory MPs now?" in relation to George Osborne's announcement in the Budget about the imposition of VAT on hot-take-out food. In that post he linked to one by Richard North which pointed out that the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) allowed the UK to zero-rate most foodstuffs, but the proposal in the budget would see the UK voluntarily give up this derogation, and once it has been given away we assuredly would never get it back. Commenting that that would be an act of even deeper EU integration, AM continued:

"So, we ask, where is the supposedly heroic and infamous band of ‘81 Tory MPs‘ who profess themselves to be rebellious Eurosceptics? Were they shouting Osborne down as he committed his budget to the House of Commons? Or were these tribal drones cheering and waving their order papers with the rest of their playmates as Little Gideon took his seat on the sumptious [sic] green leather bench? Let’s remind ourselves of the facts about these 81 Tories." (My link: Waving of Order Papers: 13:30:00)

To repeat the question posed by AM: where are these supposed 'euroscpetic' MPs? Only last October Ed Stourton (BBC) was stating:

"The latest intake of Tory MPs is far and away the most Eurosceptic in the Conservative Party's history."

A point repeated by Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, who referred to "the supercharged Conservative backbencher."

Is there not though another subject about which the latest intake of what is considered to be the most far and away eurosceptic Conservative MPs in the Party's history should be more concerned, especially the 81 to which AM refers with their call for a referendum on EU membership? I refer to one matter to which they should be concerned were a referendum to be granted yet has not, it would appear, to have entered their thoughts. Let us consider those that would be eligible to vote in any referendum; the constraints of electoral law that would be imposed on both sides of any referendum; and, more importantly, those matters which remain 'unspoken'.

From about my vote we learn:

"......Commonwealth and European Union countries. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, and resident in the UK, you are eligible to register to vote in UK elections. To qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK and either have leave to remain in the UK or not require such leave. The definition of a 'Commonwealth citizen' includes citizens of British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Citizens of the European Union (who are not Commonwealth citizens or Citizens of the Republic of Ireland) can vote in European and local elections in the UK, but are not able to vote in UK Parliamentary general elections or referendums."

It may not be realised but citizens of Malta and Cyprus are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK, even though they are citizens of the European Union, as they are also members of the Commonwealth. Those voters, whilst possibly insignificantly small in the overall numbers were the result to be close, could well be decisive.


From the Electoral Commission we learn that, as with any election, there are indeed financial constraints imposed on both sides of any referendum, however there are other aspects, ones which no-one, least of all MPs or the media, appear to have taken into consideration - I refer to:

• what may be termed eurosceptic pressure groups of which there are many.
• "Third Sector" bodies (e.g. Climate Change campaigners, WWF, Christian Aid etc) which will no doubt campaign on the basis that EU membership guarantees environmental protection and saves polar bears etc)
• Other EU-sponsored bodies, coupled with the possibility of EU-wide "parties" trying to influence results
• Corruption of the electoral process through postal voting in culturally enriched areas.
• Disproportionate funding

Consider the first item: eurosceptic pressure groups, of which there are quite a few. We currently witness one such pressure group who intend holding 'mock' referendums on an in/out question in selected constituencies, the first of which is in Thurrock -  planning to roll this out country wide - a campaign for which, at the time of writing, 103,717 have 'signed up for'. Yet there is no 'plan' for what would follow, were their overall campaign to be successful and which subsequently forced the government to grant a nationwide referendum. There are other pressure groups, who need not be named as they are 'well-known', who produce masses of literature and statements on their websites, yet seem 'actionless' - they 'talk' a lot, yet appear to do nothing. If these various pressure groups meant what they say, would not logic dictate that they combine their message and their efforts? The 1975 referendum showed that the 'No' campaign was for ever playing 'catch-up' to their opponents; in other words the 'Yes' campaign dictated the 'rules' under which that campaign was conducted. At the next referendum on EU membership those roles have to - and must - be reversed, yet the performance so far of the various euroscepticMPs are but faux eurosceptics so the cynic in me considers that the existing pressure groups are no more than what may be termed a 'controlled opposition' to EU membership - or likewise, 'faux-eurosceptics'. If they are not, then where are the provisional plans for opposition come any referendum? It is well known that public opinion can force a change of policy within government, so where is the campaign that will stir public opinion to force such a change?


What constraints are there imposed on "Third Sector" or other EU bodies regarding input into any referendum? What can be done to negate any possibility of corruption which has been shown to be endemic with the postal voting system, especially among ethnic voters?


When considering permitted expenditure for political parties during a referendum there is no level playing field within Electoral Commission rules. Note the fact that the level of expenditure for political parties is based on the proportion of the electorate who voted for the party at the previous UK Parliamentary general election. Immediately it can be seen that the one party who will be campaigning for a 'No' vote - and who took second place in the last EU elections - will be severely handicapped where the level of expenditure is concerned. Why should one party be allowed a larger expenditure than any other? Surely, if fairness is a prerequisite of any contest, all registered political parties should receive the same cap on the level of expenditure?


Are not those pressure groups that will be campaigning against EU membership but part of a 'controlled opposition' and thereby qualify to be classified as Judas Goats? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the veracity of our electoral system? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the integrity of our political elite?


The fact that the 'No' side are already on the back foot before the battle has even commenced, does not auger well. But then, as in any dictatorship, those at the head of that dictatorship will always ensure that any question put to the people elicits the required response.

Words, once written, cannot be erased

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Omar Khayyám

Someone of my acquaintance produced a cd entitled "Shore-horned into the EU....swallow it whole, swallow it now". This cd documented events leading up to Britain's entry into the Common Market in the early 1970s. He sent a copy of this cd to every Member of Parliament, some of whom are now no longer in office, however, and needless to say, the majority of MPs refused to take any further action, citing 'Parliamentary Protocol', due to the fact that as he did not live in their constituency they were unable to progress his letter further.

Bearing in mind events since May 2010 and more recently the last two days, two of the replies are most illuminating:

William Hague - 23rd September 2007:

"It has been David Cameron's view for a long time that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives, to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy, it is the right that Parliament decides how we are governed on issues such as healthcare, education and policing. But Parliament should not be able to give up the powers it has been granted by the British people without their consent."

David Cameron - 13th December 2007:

"I agree that the EEC people voted for in 1975 was different from the EU we have today. We believe political integration has gone too far and people do feel that Brussels' power has grown without their consent. It is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them."

Let me say at the outset that much as I would like a referendum, I don't want one as I believe an 'In/Out' Referendum would be lost to the 'In' vote for the same reasons as was the referendum in1975, namely the power, money and 'brain-washing' that was used by those supporting the 'In' decision. 

However, when discussing the principles of democracy, if one believes that to deny a referendum is a denial of democracy the question has to be asked of William Hague: why has no referendum been granted the people, especially when, as David Cameron states, the EEC that the people voted for bears no relation to the EU of 2011;  that Brussels' power has grown without the people's consent? William Hague should remember that it is only those who practise the art of dictatorship that deny democracy to their people - and Cameron's denial of that referendum is just that: dictatorship.

If Cameron truly does believe that it is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them, then the question arises why he does not take action to rectify the grievous wrong that has been done? More recently what, exactly, was he doing in Brussels if he was prepared to barter changes within the eurozone in return for concessions that would benefit a small section of our nation?

The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 general election spoke about protecting our national sovereignty, yet when a nation is unable, as is the case for this nation at present, to act in the best interests of its people; to decide its own future; to decide the laws by which its people live; it can no longer be regarded as sovereign. Only today Cameron is quoted by Bloomberg stating that Britain refused to sacrifice sovereignty to save the euro - err, what sovereignty is that, Mr. Cameron? The minute the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the last vestiges of sovereignty this nation possessed, disappeared.

I am firmly of the opinion that the next politician who utters the words 'sovereignty', in respect of this nation, or 'sovereignty' in respect of parliament, deserves a smack in the mouth!

Further developments on forthcoming EU Heads of State meeting

From Klein Verzet we learn that Bruno Waterfield 'tweets':

"EU to avoid any votes - parliamentary or popular on treaty change - via obscure Lisbon Treaty 'passerelle' clause, Art. 126 (14) via protocol 12. "This decision does not require ratification at national level. This procedure could therefore lead to rapid and significant changes," says confidential Van Rompuy text. Funnily enough, only Britain will have to have a parliamentary vote under the Tories recent Sovereignty Act even though it is eurozone only changes."

This 'news'  also appeared here, which begs the question what exactly are these 'amendments'? Protocol 12 deals with the matter of 3% for the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to GDP at market prices and the 60% ration of government debt to GDP at market prices. It also lays down the obligation that Member States should ensure that national procedures in the budgetary area enable them to meet thier obligations in this area and that Member States will report their planned and actual deficits and the levels of their debt promptly and regularly to the Commission.

One can but wonder how that Protocol can be 'amended'; we must remember that Van Rompuy is not looking to end the economic crisis, his priority is the EU gaining more political control, and any amendment would cement that aim. As it only pertains to the Euro17, it can be done by ministers in Council using a majority vote at the meeting of the Heads of State this week. Of course if the '17' vote as a 'caucus' at the meeting then Rompuy will have 'got his way'! What will be interesting is what Cameron is going to say and how he will 'wriggle' out his 'self-induced' 'hole' bearing in mind all his utterances of 'safeguarding', 'protecting' and 'promoting British interests'.

Especially as a Protocol is an integral part of a EU treaty and as such requires unanimous approval as it is but 'treaty change' - and thus is subject to ratitication of member states.

So, Mr. Cameron, when is the referendum - or will you actually utter that two letter word beginning with 'N'?

Just asking, you understand......................

Update: It would appear, so I am informed, that 'our Bruno' is incorrect in that even at a basic minimum, the Ponsonby rules would apply, giving the opportunity for a debate and a vote. Nor is the issue with the name (as in "protocol") but with the nature of the change. A treaty structure may be such that the protocols form the substantive part ... they may thus be major changes, which would require full-blown ratification via the ECA (European Communities Act). This is the case when we see treaty amendments via accession treaties. The ECA is amended to add the new treaty, which takes in the protocals ... thereby affirming the need for parliamentary ratification.

Further update: Just working through it, a protocol is still an integral part of a treaty thus changes require unanimous approval AND national ratification. Furthermore, a 'passerelle' can't be used if that confers new competences.

Yet further update: Richard North, EU Referendum, joins the fray.........

Transfers of Power

Preceding the meeting today between Merkel and Sarkozy - aka Merkozy - it would appear a disagreement has arisen between Iain Duncan Smith and Nick Clegg over the minutiae of the 'Referendum Act' and whether any treaty change would necessitate a referendum, with Cameron stepping in to state that there would only be a referendum "if a new treaty passes powers from UK to Brussels" adding that "as Prime Minister, I do not think the issue will arise".

Much is made of the subject of 'sovereignty' by politicians viz-a-viz our membership of the European Union; and it is therefore worthwhile considering exactly what sovereignty means. Hopefully, we can all agree that sovereignty means the ability of a nation to have supreme, independent authority within it's own territory, thus allowing it the power to make law affecting those within it's territory. Whether it concerns areas of foreign policy, immigration, or even how 'internal' matters are conducted; the minute a nation loses the right to decide any matter for itself it has suffered a loss of power - and if that loss is the result of those matters being decided by an alien 'organisation', then it has suffered a transfer of power. Since this nation has been a member of the European Union it has been subject to over thousands of rulings from that alien 'organisation' which has resulted in a transfer of power.

David Cameron has for some time been pushing the idea that in order to solve the 'euro crisis', the 17 eurozone nations should integrate and thereby accept central control of their fiscal policies. This well-thought-out policy (not) has the inherent danger that in a group of 27 members, 17 constitutes a majority and that such a majority could well impose a 'decision', one not wanted by the remaining 10. Any such 'decision' would then be binding on all 27 members and would, by nature of the concept of 'ever closer union' and 'harmonization', result in a transfer of power.

A transfer of power, under the designation of sovereignty above, is a transfer of power - there can be no degrees of transfers of power, which rather makes a mockery of the Referendum Act and the extremely careful wording with which that Act is written - but hey, we all know the reasons for that! The MSM - aka 'pretend' journalists - would have us believe that Cameron is therefore twixt the proverbial rock and a hard place, in that he either upsets the EU by granting a referendum on EU membership or he alienates his own backbenchers who, we are assured by said MSM, are largely 'eurosceptic'. Cameron is well aware that the supposed 'eurosceptics' are 'career politicians' and that they would follow their Party Whip in supporting whatever decision he makes in order to preserve their own 'careers', rather negates any worries from the rock/hard place. Of course, were he to grant a referendum it would shatter the Coalition 'accord' - which doesn't really exist, but I digress - and would result in his 'power-grab' in May 2010 having been for nought (and yes,make no mistake, Cameron is a 'career politician' too!).

Needless to say it won't be until the forthcoming 'Heads of States' meeting at the end of this week is concluded that we will know exactly 'how much further down the river we have been sold'. The fact that it should be the people who decide whether any new treaty/arrangement is acceptable, rather than a political elite, matters not.

Of course, were to to have a system of democracy that combined 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - but yet again I digress....................

Just saying...................

So, the question is In or Out then

Bruno Waterfield has an interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph with the headline "EU turmoil revives calls for referendum". Dealing with the point that it has been confirmed redrafting the treaties to ensure beleaguered economies cannot spend too much as a condition of receiving billions of euros in rescue packages and as that involves a transfer of sovereignty necessitating a referendum in Ireland, Waterfield writes:

"Ministers have stopped saying that they plan to use treaty change to take powers back from the EU. This follows private warnings from Germany that it is not willing to trade eurozone "fiscal union" for British opt-outs."

So, if that is correct, we now know that repatriation of powers is a dead duck - as we all knew it was anyway - and any future referendum in this country would need to be a straight In/Out choice. That solves one headache for David Cameron, however it does leave him with another; namely if he fancied duck for his Christmas lunch it will unfortunately not be "à l'orange" but "à sauerkraut".

Just saying.............

'The Debate' and other related matters

As I am presently experiencing difficulty in linking to the Telegraph website (all I continually receive is notices that their website is not responding) links to articles in that newspaper cannot be provided. However.....

The op-ed page in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph is taken over by two articles, one by Charles Moore and a smaller one underneath by William Hague. Moore writes about the need for a referendum on our membership of the EU, headlining his piece "The voters have been cheated for too long. Let them decide." One section stands out:

"Most people reading this column, I suspect, do not believe in government by referendum. We elect politicians to make laws on our behalf, not to keep scurrying back to ask us which laws to make. But the idea of consent is crucial to trust in the political process. For more than 20 years now, in European matters, that consent has been lacking. It has been in the interest of all political parties to make decisions which have changed our lives without offering us any electoral choice in the matter. Therefore our future consent cannot be assumed. It must be sought in writing."

That which seems to have escaped such luminaries as Charles Moore is that for decades the consent of the people to some of the laws that have been imposed on them has been lacking - and not just in the area of our membership of the EU. That political parties present manifestos, come election time, is neither here nor there as measures in those manifestos have not been implemented as promised, but have been amended thereby imposing laws for which the people were never given the opportunity of voting. Likewise there are some laws implemented by events, measures that were not in any party's manifesto, on which again the people were never given the opportunity to vote. Moore is contradicting himself when he complains that politicians have changed our lives without our consent, but then appears to be against referendums per se. In the same piece Moore writes that we should treat William Hague with a degree of tolerance because it is difficult being a minister, especially in a coalition; and that 'Europe' is a particularly painful subject for the Conservative Party. Stating that we should not insist Cameron and Hague vote for the motion under debate out of respect for the aforementioned 'difficulties' just illustrates that Charles Moore is part of the problem - he is a member of the Westminster Bubble!

Turning to William Hague's piece, he continues his stupid and illogical mantra of being in Europe but not being governed by it. He writes that as a Conservative (really?) he wishes to repatriate powers, as mentioned in his party's general election manifesto. William Hague is presented to us as a 'wise politician', one who 'knows' all that needs to be known.; one who can be trusted to make the right decisions. If Hague is 'so clever' just what is it the man does not understand about the process of acquis communitaire, something embedded in the treaties? Does he not understand that once the European Union assumes competence over any area of government it cannot be returned to member states. As I have written previously, repatriation of even one power will never be achieved as once the UK succeeded, then just about every other member state would be jumping on the bandwagon, the result being disintegration of the European Union - and that the EU elite just ain't going to allow. In any even, if Hague is so adamant about the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU, why not publish a cost/benefit analysis? The response to that question by our political elite is that the benefits are obvious - well if they are so 'obvious', prove it chaps.

Hague also writes about the need to ensure eurozone integration does not allow countries in the single currency to impose decisions on countries outside it. Just why does he not understand that the figure of 17 comprises a majority in a total figure of 27 - or is simple maths not one of his strong points? That financial control of all member states is the reported aim of Jose Manuel Barosso is touched upon in John Redwood's latest post. Once again, just what is it about a "single coherent framework for the better economic governance based on the community method" that Hague does not understand and as such continues to maintain that we are not governed by the EU? Reverting to the benefits of our country's membership of the EU, Hague writes:

"The ability to lead European countries to a united position, as with sanctions on Iran and Syria, strengthens Britain's power in the world. Even obscure directives can have benefits: directive 2009/147/EC prevents the slaughter of our garden birds as they migrate over the Mediterranean."

And the prevention of the slaughter of our garden birds flying over the Mediterranean is reason enough for our being a chattel of the European Union? Sheesh, Hague is more of an idiot than I first thought.

On the subject of the forthcoming debate on Monday next, Autonomous Mind posts on this subject, mentioning the Eustice amendment. As I posted a day or two ago, this motion is a Backbench Business Committee motion and as such needs to be debated as written - yet few have 'picked up' on this point. Speaker Bercow proclaims himself a champion of the backbenches and it is unlikely he would allow any amendment or alternative motion. To do so would mean him subjecting himself to accusations of hypocrisy, let alone any accusation of being a 'government tool' and that of ignoring the will of MPs and their own committee. Turning to another aspect of AM's post, I refer to the letter sent to Eustice by Bernard Jenkin in which the latter advises he is against an In/Out referendum. That statement immediately, in my book, transfers Jenkin from the 'eurosceptic' camp into the 'europlastic' camp. Just who the hell is Bernard Jenkin to allow his personal view to interfere in how and where he casts his vote? But then Jenkin is but doing what all MPs do - namely having achieved the position of MP promptly then deciding that only they know best and to hell with the views of the people they are meant to represent.

Another interesting aspect of this forthcoming debate and the questions on the motion proposed by the Backbench Business Committee comes with the publication of a poll by YouGov, one referred to by James Forsyth in this post from the Coffee House:

"The poll results also demonstrate that only a small percentage of the public would vote for the country’s current set-up with the European Union if they had the chance. Only 15 per cent would vote to stay in, compared to 28 per cent who would vote to leave, while 47 per cent would plump for renegotiation. If forced to chose between In or Out, the public splits 31 to 52."

Notice how 'renegotiation' has achieved a substantial following and one has to wonder just how many of that following actually understand that the option they most favour just ain't available, or why? Yet again we see how political spin and the failure to be honest with the electorate achieves just exactly what the politicians want, namely the pursuance of an unachievable policy but one that effectively closes further debate on the subject. On this subject of 'renegotiation', it is worth reading this, which Richard North wrote way back in 2008 and which reaffirms my previous comment about why renegotiation is not an option.

As an aside, Ian Parker-Joseph has announced the birth of his fifth grandson and remarks, in a reply in his comment section, that he fights for his country, a fight previously carried out by his father and grandfather. He ends by saying that he will never give up that fight and would wish to seem them all hang first. In offering my congratulations I suggested that as part of the celebrations perhaps we should being the hanging now.

That 'EUnnoying' debate

There is much is being written, in the media, about the forthcoming debate on a motion for a referendum to be debated in the House of Commons, including an article by Graham Brady in today's Daily Telegraph, one that can be accessed via Richard North. Paul Waugh, Politics Home, makes great play of the news that those Conservative MPs who have signed Nuttall's motion has grown to 60 and has also just announced on Twitter that Ed Miliband is instructing his MPs to vote against the motion. Likewise is Guido Fawkes reporting that Nick Clegg is imposing a three-line whip on his MPs.

That a frenzy is being built up over this debate, to the point of being utterly ridiculous, comes with a further posting by Guido Fawkes that upto 15 ministers and whips are prepared to defy the three-line whip that Cameron is reported to be imposing. Everyone seems to have forgotten that as this motion came from the Backbench Business Committee it must be voted on as written and as such the possibility of an amendment, one more favourable to Cameron et all, is not on the table. That is not to say that an alternative motion could not be tabled but then Bercow would be placed in a position of choosing that, when the Backbench Business Committee have in effect stated that they want the existing motion debated. Another point that seems to have escaped the notice of those partaking in this hysteria being built is that if Labour and the Liberal Democrats are whipped to vote against the motion, the motion is as good as lost anyway.

Not wishing to crow, but this latest political shannighan just confirms that which I have been saying for some time now - we do not live in a democracy, but in a democratised dictatorship! Methinks just for once Cameron's advice should be adopted by all and sundry, namely: "Calm down dears"!

As an aside, in the Daily Telegraph letters column today is one from Richard Craven, Pickering, West Yorkshire who writes that Mr. Cameron would do well to rememebr that it is the voters who elect MPs, not the Prime Minister and that those MPs should consider the wishes of their constitutents. He ends by pointing out that MPs should remember that voters have longer memories than they are given credit for.  With no disrespect to Mr. Craven, whose surname would appear to mirror his views, voters do appear to have extremely short memories - why else would Labour be holding an 8% lead in opinion polls?

MPs to debate the referendum question?

The announcement that MPs are to debate whether those they serve should be allowed a referendum on membership of the European Union just illustrates the deficit in our present system of democracy, one whereby the servants decide what their masters can or cannot have. The motion, according to Douglas Carswell, reads:

"This house calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united kingdom:

A) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
B) leave the european union; or
C) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation"

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posted this before the announcement and followed up with this, as an update, afterwards - the thrust of which I totally agree.

This motion is, in my opinion, designed to cause division in any referendum put to the public vote as option (c) is 'open-ended' in that it can be taken to mean almost anything. In any event were a referendum held with these questions and option (b) gained the majority of votes then surely option (c) would have to follow if we wished to continue trading with the EU - which begs the question why it appears in the first place.

Were that motion to be passed in the HoC, Cameron would have to hold a referendum and abide by its result, as to defy the will of Parliament would place him on extremely dangerous ground. For that reason it can be fairly certain that he will impose a three-line whip on the vote to ensure that the motion is rejected - a decision that will cause those 'careerists' amongst the 120 'Useless Eustice' group of supposed Tory eurosceptics a little problem. Presumably MilibandE will follow suit as he too is adamant that this country should remain a member of the EU - likewise the Liberal Democrats.

I know not what arm-twisting has been done to members of the Backbench Business Committee but the government sure as hell have managed with this motion to ensure they can't lose!

This debate can best be summed up in the words of PC Plod - move along please, nothing to see here.......

David Cameron's history - if only......

When one decides to delve back into history, it is surprising what you find. Unfortunately, due to my having only begun in December 2009, my personal 'reference book' is rather minuscule when compared to others. Richard North, EU Referendum, has very kindly sourced some of his material for me - my thanks, Richard.

David Cameron was appointed leader of his party on 6th December 2005 and has always maintained his eurosceptism burns brightly within him - which is rather odd really when you travel back in time. Digressing slightly, readers will be aware of the novel 1984 by George Orwell in which Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth where he is employed to change passages in past newspaper articles in such a way as to make them congruent with current party doctrine - something similar oddly enough appears to be happening today.

On the basis of one speech, made without notes at the Conservative Leadership Conference in October 2005, Cameron attained the leadership of his party. Videos of this speech were available on youtube, yet strangely they appear to have been censored  for reasons of copyright, which is also odd bearing in mind the text of that speech can still be read. A year earlier at the Conservative Party Conference, during a fringe meeting Cameron spent five minutes offering his views on how his party would win the next general election. Richard North posted on this with a link to the Conservative Party website, a link that also seems unavailable - quelle surprise.

The same month an edition of Question Time featured a panel comprising Nigel Farage, Patricia Hewitt, Jody Dunn, Matthew Parris and...... David Cameron. For some time now we have heard nothing from the Conservative Party but talk of repatriation of powers from the EU; we have had Hague talking about it and Useless Eustice forming his pressure group, a group presumably formed with Cameron's agreement, to further that aim. I have always maintained that repatriation of powers from Brussels was 'pie-in-the-sky' as the EU only has one aim, which is 'ever closer union', coupled with the fact that were just one power repatriated to any member state it would open a Pandora's Box whereby other member states would apply. In this QT programme both Cameron and Parris were of the belief that repatriation of powers was possible, citing the example of Margaret Thatcher who, as Richard North chronicles here, had an 'ace in the hole'. What is more important though is, as Nigel Farage stated in this programme and luckily noted by Richard North in this post, any repatriation of powers would require the agreement of the remaining member states.

Returning to Cameron's election to the leadership one has to ask just what those who voted for him were thinking. His leadership bid speech contained his aversion to the party moving to the right, he only mentioned Europe once and not in the context of EU membership and if one rereads his speech the content is so bland as to be forgettable. Just a year earlier he had been guilty of espousing the party line and then publicly attempted to be disingenuous by linking repatriation of powers to the success of Margaret Thatcher's rebate 'handbagging'. The failure of his party to secure an outright majority in 2010 may well be attributable to the fact that by then the majority of Conservative members had realised the gigantic error they had made in choosing Cameron and consequently 'did not go for it', 'did not seize it', 'did not fight for it' which resulted in 'someone or something denying them'.

Were a referendum held on our membership of the EU and which resulted in 'Out', what follows is not that simple, as Richard North explains in this post. Back in 2004 Cameron knew this, back in 2005 when he made his leadership bid he knew this, back in 2007 when he gave his cast-iron guarantee on a referendum he knew this, back in early 2010 when he he begged voters to elect a eurosceptic Conservative Party he knew this - and this year when he obviously agreed to Useless Eustice forming his pressure group urging repatriation, he knew that this is unachievable too and he is not the only one either. It stands to reason so do the likes of Cash, Redwood, Carswell, Heaton-Harris and the remainder of the supposed eurosceptic Conservatives, including Useless Eustice, Raab, and Patel.

Hopefully the EU will implode through some external factor such as the failure (at long last) of the euro but failing that withdrawal could, I still believe, be accomplished although the after effects might be painful for a time.

Politicians have known for some time now that they are not respected and are held in derision by the public. Should it cross their minds to wonder why, might I suggest they just ask David Cameron. He has not been honest with us, he has lied for personal, political gain and in so doing he has been another to have sullied his Office, his reputation and what was once a revered profession. It reflects badly on those who profess to be honourable, principled men and women that they continue to allow themselves to be led by one of questionable standards. But then, maybe, the fact that any protest is most noticeable by its absence, the fact they seem content to continue to allow themselves to be led..................

Readers may have noticed one omission above when listing prominent eurosceptics and in this regard I would recall an event during the last general election when a microphone worn by Gordon Brown was famously left 'live'. Well, it would seem a similar occurrence happened and Cameron and Hannan were overheard. Enjoy...........!