A section of the editorial in today's Telegraph needs to be read as it beggars belief that anyone could be paid to write such utter crap! Under the heading: "David Cameron must stand his ground on EU demands" we read:
"At this week's EU summit, our most instinctively Eurosceptic Prime Minister for 20 years faces a tricky set of challenges. The easiest to bat away will be the European Parliament's risible demand for a 5.9 per cent budget increase for the Commission next year........The Prime Minister has – rightly – described the increase as "irresponsible and unacceptable" and is busily seeking allies in the Council of Ministers to impose either a freeze or a cut. Although there should be no shortage of volunteers for such a measure, this will be an early test of Mr Cameron's mettle in European negotiations, and one he cannot afford to fumble."
FFS! Perhaps the idiot writer has not read this, which explains why the above paragraph is again, 'crap'?
The Telegraph writer also cannot make up his/her mind whether what will transpire is a new treaty or a change to the existing Lisbon treaty. At the beginning of the third paragraph it talks about:
"A rather more ticklish problem is posed by the Franco-German plan for a new treaty to strengthen the eurozone."
and the start of the fourth paragraph we then read:
"The Prime Minister is likely to argue that this shoring up of the euro's foundations can be done without a treaty change......."
Were there to be a 'new' treaty, then Lisbon would be 'defunct' - but the EU don't need a new treaty as all the changes they wish can be accomplished under the existing Lisbon Treaty, which has that oft-forgotten (well, oft-forgotten by the MSM that is) self-amending clause.
The remainder of the editorial is so 'full of holes' that one might suggest the Editor-in-Chief be taken outside the Telegraph's offices and summarily shot!
Is it any wonder that the public are so unaware of 'matters EU' when all they are presented with in their 'daily mis-information sheets' is a standard of journalism that aims so low it probably would not even get a 'Z' rating!
Oh alright then, I'll be generous - 'Z' Minus!