Hacked Off (2)

Richard North, EU Referendum, writes about what he terms village idiots posing as journalists, to which can be added leader-writers.

Part of the editorial comment in today's Daily Telegraph really does 'take the biscuit' for its patronising and illogical content.

"The strategy he unveiled yesterday was both coherent and credible, robustly Eurosceptic in tone while wholly realistic in ambition."

Hardly coherent, definitely not credible, more Europhile than Eurosceptic and totally unrealistic in ambition. Not coherent in that all Cameron could do at his press conference was continually repeat the same thing time and again. Not credible in that it amounts to a 'fairy story', but one containing yet another 'cast-iron' guarantee which will be shattered. Unrealistic in that the agreement of the other 26 member states will not be forthcoming as it would open a Pandora's Box of almost every other member state clamouring for their own opt-outs. If this is the height of ambition of David Cameron and his 'government-in-waiting' one has to ask when will the bar be raised above ground level.

"Instead, he said that if negotiations in the next parliament over the repatriation of powers prove futile, the Tories will, if they win the subsequent election, put the issue to a national vote."

Agreeing to have a referendum at the subsequent general election may be all very well, but it seems to forget that Cameron has to win the next one first. And in any event since when did politicians allow those that pay them, privileges? I seem to recall a saying 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'?

David Cameron has been duplicitous in what he has said, in what he has done - this policy has been in his filing cabinet for some time - and he asks us to trust him?

Dan Hannan Wants A Referendum

So does Douglas Carswell.

Dan Hannan goes slightly further. He says:

"We need a broad movement within the Conservative Party that will push for referendums, citizens’ initiatives and the rest of the paraphernalia of direct democracy. I don’t just mean a referendum on Europe - though, naturally, that is the obvious place to start. I mean full-on Helvetic people power, ..................I have returned to the back benches in order to concentrate on building such a movement.

Don’t misunderstand me: I voted for David Cameron as leader.............and I reckon he’d be a million times better than Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. One of his strengths is that, unlike Gordon Brown, he doesn’t mind people disagreeing with him. Well, then. This Conservative is for a referendum: a proper, deep-cleansing referendum that will settle whether our country remains subordinate, or becomes self-governing. Now who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?" (my emphasis)

Don't Let Tim Montgomerie Play Football For Your Side!

Unless you want a plethora of 'own goals' that is! From a post on Conservative Home with this heading:

"There are very good reasons to vote Conservative (but Europe isn't such a good one anymore)"

 Ukip have just had a slogan handed them on a plate! Thanks, Tim!

Cameron 'Con'

Having watched the third charade of the day, Cameron's 'statement on Europe' - the first two being PMQs and Harriet Harmans statement on Kelly - he seems to have committed the greatest sin of all, that being: when in a hole stop digging.

"Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people. If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum. And that will cover not just any future treaties like Lisbon, but any future attempt to take Britain into the euro. We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key - a commitment very similar to that in Ireland." 

As Lisbon is a self-amending treaty there will be no further treaties, so why promise a 'referendum lock' which will never be used - yet another worthless 'cast-iron' guarantee. The fact that the Lisbon Treaty states the currency of the European Union will be the euro - and remember we as a country have just signed that treaty - there ain't much Cameron can do about it if the EU 'decide' to 'introduce' it. As to a 'referendum lock' - if we had a referendum - we all know what happened to Ireland!

"I recognise there are some who, now that we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, want a referendum on something else...anything else. But I just don't think it's right to concoct some new pretext for a referendum simply to have one for the sake of it.That wouldn't survive serious scrutiny." 

Whilst it is accepted that we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - that is now 'dead', having become law - why cannot we have a referendum on our membership of the EU, which can be summed up as 'Who Governs Britain'. That is hardly 'concocting' a pretext, surely? What does not 'survive serious scrutiny', Mr. Cameron, is your ducking that simple fact!

"A Conservative Government will address some of these problems by negotiating three specific guarantees with our European partners guarantees over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU."

Whilst acknowledging that any 're-negotiation' requires the agreement of the other 26 members, Cameron does not say what would happen if they do not agree. Stating that it would probably take the life of the next parliament to accomplish means that if not agreement is forthcoming we would, in effect, be exactly where we are now.

"What I have set out today settles our policy for the next parliament." 

A policy which can leave you, five years later, in exactly the situation that you are in today is, for sure, one hell of a policy! In other words, Cameron has 'concocted' a plan to 'shunt' the matter to one side for five years.

"If I am elected Prime Minister, the British Government I lead will be an active member of the European Union."

As the majority of the country don't wish to remain a member of the EU, under the current terms of membership, what right does Cameron have to insist that we remain a member? Does he not have an obligation to annul, laws which the British people do not want? Bugger! I forgot, Cameron's a politician and as such obligations are a word he no doubt does not understand - or believe in!

"Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people..........It is not politicians' power to give away - it belongs to the people."

If it is right that, in the future, transfer of power should not be carried out without the say of the British people and that it was not the politicians' power to give away, then surely it is right that the transfer of powers that have already happened need the 'say of the British people'?

One also has to ask if what was said today is a 'cast-iron' guarantee or a promise - either way, does it matter in that what has been 'promised' is not worth the paper his words were written on for one simple reason. The EU would never agree to the repatriation of some powers as it would open a Pandora's Box. If they did agree to what Cameron wants, it would mean he could go back again and ask for more, leaving the EU with no option but to agree, having agreed previously. It would also mean other countries in the EU also clamouring for the return of certain powers.

The European Union will not be worried in the least about what Cameron is proposing today - the only thing that would worry them would be if he had announced an 'in' or 'out' referendum as, for certain, they know what the answer would have been.

MPs, Trust, Promises, Respect, Government

Having watched the unveiling of the Kelly Report, PMQs and then the statement from Harriet Harman, I was struck by the following, during the latter two events.

MPs repeatedly talking about the standing Parliament, the perception of Parliament, MP's integrity and, in particular Gordon Brown maintaining that, unlike some, he and his Party keep their promises.

The banality of it all took my breath away. For Gordon Brown to maintain, with a straight face, that he keeps his promise, WTF! Gordon, let me give you a clue - 'referendum, promise of '?

For MPs to stand up, one after another, and pontificate about the standing of Parliament and their own integrity when they have been complicit in eradicating hundred of years of democracy, its traditions and customs, in this country beggars belief!

The whole performance offered by PMQs and Harriet Harmans statement which immediately followed was nothing more than a charade. On the basis that a leopard does not change its spots, one suspects that the next charade will be that scheduled to begin at 4pm today!

Some Thoughts

For some time I have been a great devotee of the words of Ronald Reagan. His detractors often criticised him, mocked him and his views, however as history often shows words spoken by enlightened men often resonate in later years. Especially now, with the imminent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, consider the following:

From a speech in 1957, given to the Eureka College:

"And now today we find ourselves involved in another struggle, this time called a cold war. This cold war between great sovereign nations isn't really a new struggle at all. It is the oldest struggle of human kind, as old as man himself. This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state........Don't be deceived because you are not hearing the sound of gunfire, because even so you are fighting for your lives. And you're fighting against the best organized and the most capable enemy of freedom and of right and decency that has ever been abroad in the world...........This democracy of ours which sometimes we've treated so lightly, is more than ever a comfortable cloak, so let us not tear it asunder, for no man knows once it is destroyed where or when he will find its protective warmth again."

From a speech on the campaign during the 1964 Presidential election:

"This democracy of ours which sometimes we've treated so lightly, is more than ever a comfortable cloak, so let us not tear it asunder, for no man knows once it is destroyed where or when he will find its protective warmth again........You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

From a speech to 2nd Annual CPAC Convention, 1st March 1975; relevant today in respect of the position of the Conservative Party in the polls:

"But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors revert[ed] to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means." Relevant to our agreement to join what was then the Common Market: "In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself."

From the closing remark of a speech at The Conservative Political Action Conference Dinner, 20th March 1981:

"Our moment has arrived. We stand together shoulder to shoulder in the thickest of the fight. If we carry the day and turn the tide, we can hope that as long as men speak of freedom and those who have protected it, they will remember us, and they will say, "Here were the brave and here their place of honor."

Digressing, but relevant to the present expenses scandal, is this story from a speech to the Annual Convention of Evangicals in Orlando, Florida:

"An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters. And he couldn't help but ask, he said, "But wait, how -- there's something wrong -- how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?" And St. Peter said, "You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it."

From a speech to the House of Commons, 8th June 1982:

"The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God..........During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, "What kind of people do they think we are?" Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we think we are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well..............For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny."

It is worth repeating words from Ronald Reagan's First Inaugaral Address, 20th January 1981:

 

"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

In the extracts above, I have tried to remind you of the words of one who was a great statesman - and would that we, in this country, had one today. Do go read more of the words of Ronald Reagan, which can be found here.

Is This The Way Forward?

My thanks to Muffled Vociferation and her post which leads to this.

Whilst not agreeing with all the ideas put forward by nourishing obscurity, the general idea does seem to appeal.

Comments anyone? Not that it is expected they would read this, but comments Hannan, Carswell, Farage, Cash, Helmer et all?

The Paucity Of The Socialist Argument

Readers of this blog will know that I have been engaged in a hard fight to determine which housing association is to be my new landlord - result not yet known.

I have just been involved in an argument - very short - about our membership of the EU and the fact we have not been consulted. When confronting him with the point that he is demanding a say on who should be his new landlord and the contradiction encapsulated in his view that we should not have a say on our membership of the EU and thereby who dictates the laws under which we live, his response was noticable by its absence!

Principles? Socialists don't know the meaning of the word!

Chris Bryant - An 'Honourable' Politician?

Chris Bryant, Minister for Europe, has called on David Cameron to make an immediate announcement, rather than 'bury' it under the details of the Kelly report which is due out tomorrow. He also called for 'honesty and straightforwardness' from the Conservatives.

This statement - from a minister of a government renowned for 'burying bad news', for making announcements just prior to the dissolution of Parliament, known for being anything but 'straightforward' - leaves me, almost, utterly speechless with its sheer effrontery.

Gordon Brown, in his acceptance speech on assuming the leadership of his party, included these two sentences: "And we will govern for all the people of our country." and "The new government I will lead belongs to you." If he really meant that then (a) in governing for all the people he would not follow a course of action which the majority did not want; and (b) if the government he leads belongs to the people he must ask the people for their agreement to casting aside hundreds of years of self-rule. His action in not fulfilling a manifesto promise of a referendum on a treaty, generally acknowledged as being virtually identical with its predecessor, is the act of a coward, a dishonourable man and a charlatan.

Never let Gordon Brown address me ever again on matters of liberty, Britishness, honesty, truth, respect or duty and that applies also to any politician, regardless of party, who is not prepared to stand up for the independence of this country. May all such politicians be condemned to eternal hell and damnation

A Forerunner Of Things To Come?

I wonder if this is a but the start of more similar articles and also on what voting by the electorate will be partly based, come the General election?

Some in the MSM may well believe, as does every MP, that the public will have forgotten 'Expensegate' come May/June next year and also that the EU will not feature very much as a topic.

Methinks they are wrong - and this blog will do its utmost to make sure that people do not overlook those two factors - even if they have become two 'elephants in the room'!

H/T: Sky News & Guido Fawkes

Hacked Off

Normally I would have 'time' for Rachel Sylvester of the Times, but on this occasion I must take issue with some of her views.

Discussing the 'expenses' scandal and the effect of the 'court of public opinion', Rachel opines:

 "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons".

And are we not justified Rachel in both our verdict and our wish for the future of the House of Commons? It is also worth noting that some of us would not stop there either - the use of hemp and lamp posts springs to mind!

The article also states:

"Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election. But politics is about mood and emotion as well as reason and for the rule of law to be upheld the system has to command respect.......Once the authority slips completely anarchy looms — or the voters will look for an alternative source of leadership, such as the BNP".

Having previously made the point that 'journalists' are guilty of 'sweeping statements' without checking their facts, or even considering the words written - for example 'Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election' - perhaps she does not recall this and this? 

Also what is the problem with 'journalists' that when writing on the subject of the electorate looking for an alternative repository for their vote, always offer the BNP as that alternative repository? Is this part of a 'conspiracy', by the Con/Lab/LibDem parties and the MSM, to ensure that those parties do receive votes? Have 'journalists' not heard of the SNP or Ukip?

Writing that: "Sir Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is right to raise concerns about Conservative plans for elected police chiefs — that will simply encourage knee-jerk populism." Rachel Sylvester demonstrates a lack of understanding of 'direct democracy' and 'choice' - go read 'The Plan', please! Oh, and 'knee-jerk populism' is far better than 'knee-jerk politics'!

Likewise her comment: "The verdict of the court of public opinion is too harsh on many MPs." shows a complete lack of understanding about how the public feel on the issue. Any MP who has purchased a second home, not made any claims other than mortgage interest, utility bills and council tax, and then subsequently sold that property, having paid CGT and made a profit, is guilty of personal gain at the expense of the taxpayer; and is thus guilty of a lack of moral judgement on what is right and wrong.


Which is probably why I am 'hacked off' by what appears to be 'amateur hacks'!

'Journalism'? Where

Both the Times and Telegraph report on the 'shock' news that the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro will have melted within the next 20 years. Watts Up With That has a post on this entitled 'Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro rubbish again!', which just about says it all!. Note that at the end of this post Anthony Watts makes the point that "it is simply bad science to not consider land use issues looking you in the face while you drill ice cores on the slopes." and, in regard to land use, I would point you to this post, also from Watts Up With That.

In his book, The Real Global Warming Scandal, Christopher Booker recounts how Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris disagreed strongly with the IPCC's 2001 report, to which he had contributed, that global warming would cause a spread of diseases. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Tony Blair, made the now familiar claim that global warming was responsible for the melting of the ice at the summit of Kilimanjaro. He was challenged by Reiter who referred to studies that showed this had been taking place since the 1880s. It was not due to global warming, these studies concluded but to deforestation causing a sharp drop in precipitation. Booker writes: "Apparently unable to answer Reiter's point, King broke off in mid-sentence and led his delegation out of the room." (pp 115,116)

Yet again we have articles written by supposed 'journalists' who have failed to do their homework and produce a 'balanced' article, instead preferring to 'parrot' the information with which they seem to have been presented.

Things Must Be Serious!

The Devil's Kitchen has a post entitled 'Farewell freedom - it was nice knowing you' and, as Bishop Hill says on Samazdata, things must have got to an extremely serious state when DK posts without the use of one swear word!

Did The Conservatives Campaign On A Lie In European Elections 2009?

Much has been made of David Cameron's breaking of the 'cast-iron' guarantee he gave on 26th September 2007, which for the record was this: "No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."

Yet here Timothy Kirkhope, at the launch of the 2009 European election campaign in Rawstenstall, Rossendale and Darwin said this: "To do this, we want to bring Europe closer to its people.  That is why we are campaigning in this election for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - the referendum Labour promised but has never delivered." No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybe' - "we are campaigning in this election for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty" - no mention of pre-ratification or post-ratification, just a plain statement.

From the Sun, on 1st June 2009: "He also repeated his vow to hold a referendum on the hated Lisbon Treaty if he becomes PM. He said: If you vote Conservative you are voting to put pressure on the Government to hold that referendum on the European constitution that Labour promised and haven't delivered." I don't recall any repudiation of the first part of that statement stating Cameron would hold a referendum.

Their 2009 European election manifesto stated: "We pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty is not in force in the event of the election of a Conservative Government this year or next, we will hold areferendum on it, urge its rejection, and – if successful – reverse Britain’s ratification. And if the Constitution is already in force by then, we have made clear that in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy, and we would not let matters rest there. " Any statement that says "in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy", even allowing for the "we would not let matters rest there" implies that a referendum is still possible.

During the European election campaign the Conservatives kept repeating that a vote for them was a vote for a referendum, whilst still maintaing silence on what their policy would be if Lisbon had been ratified by the time of the next General election. By not stating their position and in effect asking the British electorate to sign a blank cheque, was that not deceitful?

It was not until very recently that, under pressure, Cameron started saying that, if ratified, Lisbon would be a legal treaty and therefore a referendum would not be possible.

Just a thought..........

The Alternative To Cameron

Is this.

Talking Of 'Cast-Iron' Guarantees, Gordon............

Today in the House of Commons, during questions to Gordon Brown on the outcome of the recent European Council summit, a question from Labour MP Ian Davidson made reference to the news that the Conservatives have indicated they are unlikely to 'un-pick' the Lisbon Treaty via a referendum if it has already been ratified. He suggested that those who "capitulate" on their pledges betray the promises made to the British people.

Remember these?

“If we secure a treaty that is acceptable for Britain, then I believe we can also put it successfully to the British people.”
- Gordon Brown, 12 May 2004

“It’s not as though this is being imposed on the country. People will have the chance to put their views.”
- Gordon Brown, 26 Jan 2005

“The manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”
- Gordon Brown, 24 June 2007

"No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
- David Cameron, 26 Sept 2007

"It's not as though this is being imposed on the country"; "that is an issue of trust for me with the electorate"; "Today, I will give you this cast-iron guarantee........." Indeed Mr. Davidson, those who "capitulate" on their pledges do indeed betray the promises made to the British people - be they Labour or Conservative!

And they still consider themselves 'Honourable'? FFS!

The Start Of 'Blue Civil War'?

Bill Cash, Conservative MP, has issued a press release on the 'suggested' 'manifesto mandate', as outlined by Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home yesterday.

Whether Bill Cash is on his own or other Conservative MPs will also be willing to speak out, only time will tell. This could however well open public debate, will no doubt be seized on by both Labour and the LibDems and cause David Cameron no end of harm.

Two comments on the post dealing with Bill Cash's press release were quite 'pointed' in their content. One dealt with the 'cast-iron' guarantee by Cameron - or as Gordon Brown said on television just now, cast-eye-ron' - and queried whether this was now being melted down to make a pigs-ear. The second comment pointed out that cast-iron was a brittle matter and generally shatters under impact.

It is a sad comment on the state of our democracy that when Gordon Brown answered questions this afternoon, in the House of Commons, on the outcome of the recent European Council summit only about 50 of our 'finest' seemed interested enough to attend.

The EU Rules - OK?

At the weekend the front page of the Sunday Express reported that the European Commission's proposed Consumer Rights Directive will end the right of shoppers to get their money back for unwanted or faulty goods. The legislation, which would also cover goods bought over the phone or the internet, is designed to ensure the same level of consumer protection if shoppers buy goods in any EU member state. But instead of money-back guarantees, the Directive would allow traders to offer only the repair or replacement of faulty goods.

The article noted that traders' liability for replacement or repair would also be cut from six years to two, even though such products as cars, boilers and double glazing should reasonably be expected to last longer. Crucially, the proposed Directive does not allow the UK Government or retailers to offer consumer safeguards beyond the EU legislation.

The EU's own website states "The existing consumer protection directives are based on minimum harmonisation. This means that Member States can go beyond the degree of protection granted to consumers in EC law by introducing or maintaining stricter national consumer rules."

 As in so many areas, this demonstrates yet again that it does not matter what we in Britain may want - what we will get is that which is 'permitted' by our benevolent  unelected and unaccountable masters dictatorship in Brussels.

 Now, what was it David Cameron said at the Conservative Party conference? Ah yes, the Tories are committed to a long-term programme to reduce "big government" because "state-driven solutions "undermine the personal and social responsibility that should be the lifeblood of a strong society." He also said: "This is my DNA: family, community, country."

It is a great pity then that David Cameron does not put his country first and allow the people to vote on whether they wish to remain a member of the EU.

Some DNA, what?

IDS - Illogical Dementia Syndrome?

Ian Duncan Smith is proposing that court sentences of less than two months are 'farcical', according to this BBC report.

Too true, IDS! Let us make it at least 12 months with no remission!

The sooner 'society' knows that you break the law you get punished and lose the 'benefits' of the society 'rules' you don't wish to acknowledge, the better!

Oh, and don't worry about the lack of prison places - pack 'em in four or more to a cell and to hell with Human Rights!

Does This Dig An Even Bigger Hole?

Tim Montgomerie, on Conservative Home, posts on the subject of what the Conservative Party position will now be on the matter of the Lisbon Treaty and the UK's membership of the EU.

To expand on comments I have made to Tim Montgomerie's post, firstly it is obvious that any referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon would be to try to undo that which cannot be undone and is therefore a pointless exercise.

With regard to the point Tim Montgomerie makes in respect of Cameron's 'cast-iron pledge' and that it referred specifically to the ratification process - that is open to question.

Another claim is that David Cameron has delivered by his pledge to remove the Conservative Party from membership of the EPP and that in doing so has 'delivered on Europe'. That pledge is about the only pledge he has made on Europe that he has kept and that took how long?

Great emphasis is put on the proposed manifesto promise to fight for repatriation of key powers, yet as Tim Montgomerie must be aware, that would depend on the agreement of the other 26 members. As this is hardly likely to happen it must therefore be considered a 'false' manifesto commitment.

Cameron  may well end up leading a country that is 'more Eurosceptic than ever', but so what? The past few years have demonstrated that whilst the country has become increasingly Eurosceptic all three political parties have just ignored the electorate - thus demonstrating the three main party's belief in what they mean by 'democracy'.

It is worth repeating that three times David Cameron has been invited, by the Witney branch of the UK Independence Party, to publicly debate in his constituency, the question of the UK's membership of the EU and three times he has declined. Is David Cameron so unsure of his policy he feels unable to justify it in public debate - something, surely, his constituents - let alone the country - deserve? 

The country is crying out for a leader to show some 'backbone', so in relation to the preceding paragraph - David, show us you have one!