I suppose the question can be summed up in just two words - David Cameron, but as that, would of necessity, negate the content of this post, please bear with me.
Today there have been two posts of note, one by Helen Szamuely at Your Freedom and Ours; the other by John Ward at The Slog. Helen Szamuely posts on an article by Iain Martin of the Wall Street Journal in which Martin ponders the lack of opposition to the EU by Tory MPs, bearing in mind certain matters which have been approved with barely a murmur of discontent.
Consider the findings of a poll conducted by Conservative Home amongst the candidates for the top 220 Tory target seats - and commented upon in an article in the Guardian. When one remembers that all but two candidates for Tory seats were selected from those chosen and approved by Tory Central, it is therefore hardly surprising that there has been no murmur of discontent amongst their MPs. It is also a fact that during the election campaign Tory candidates were 'controlled' by CCHQ on any statements concerning the European Union. This is borne out by the findings of the Albion Alliance during the 2010 general election, when they published replies from Tory candidates to emails and letters sent by members of the electorate requesting a referendum and asking whether those candidates supported that request. It is not unreasonable to state that 99% of the replies received had used the 'template' supplied by CCHQ, with maybe a minor tweak here and there.
The Conservative Party presented itself as the Europsceptic party during the Euro elections of 2009, after which their Leader performed the biggest 'U' turn that has been witnessed in history. They then repeated their Eurosceptism during the 2010 general election. It can also be justifiably argued that not one of the three party leaders wished to discuss 'Europe' during the general election, witnessed by the fact that it only received just a few minutes attention during the second debate, part of the sham that was the "Leader's Debate".
Contrary to their manifesto (page 103), their website at the time of the election and the Coalition programme for government (page 19), they promised no further powers would be transferred without a referendum. Iain Martin's article notes four areas where power has been transferred, yet no referendum has been granted.
It must therefore follow that Cameron and his party are guilty of deceit; they are guilty of lying; they have no understanding of honour, principle or patriotism, being obviously more concerned about personal standing, privilege and power; and consequently they are unworthy of holding office. Yet another unfortunate example of how our democracy is indeed broken is that those accusations can be levied at 80/90% of their parliamentary colleagues.
As history has shown, those in public life found to be deceitful, liars, dishonourable, unprincipled and unpatriotic have both metaphorically and physically invariably 'danced on air' at the end of a piece of hemp. Our political finest would do well to remember that salutory lesson!