They died in vain

The Sunday Telegraph is amongst several newspapers who link the erosion of democracy with Remembrance Day, and thence to the point we made recently about the paradox of fighting for "democracy" in Afghanistan, when we have given away our own.

Our ancestors fought for our freedom, and the current generation is fighting and dying in Afghanistan for the same cause. Yet it is indisputable that those freedoms for which they fought and are fighting have been steadily eroded, to the point where we are no longer an independent nation. We have lost that ultimate freedom – the freedom to govern ourselves.

This, however, will be the last Remembrance Day before the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. Next year, we will be remembering not only the lives that were expended in the cause of our freedom, but the fact that we have, despite the sacrifices, lost that freedom. Those who died have died in vain.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Another one at it

"Amid all the detailed argument about the Lisbon Treaty and referendums, it is easy to ignore a basic truth about Cameron's EU strategy and the trajectory upon which he is now set. This will be the first unequivocally Eurosceptic government of modern times."

So says Matthew d'Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph. Thus, following in the footsteps of Daniel Finkelstein and Benedict Brogan, he is the third prominent political commentator (to our knowledge) to mark Cameron's "modern" Conservatives as "eurosceptic".

However, all this does is illustrate - as we remarked in our piece on Brogan - that the political claque, living in exactly the same bubble as the politicians, is equally out of touch.

The remarkable thing is that d'Ancona, like his fellow travellers, almost certainly believes that Cameron is a eurosceptic. But, if they cannot distinguish between a europhile and a eurosceptic, they are not equipped to offer sensible comment on one of the most important political issues of our time.

Such men, who so fundamentally lack judgement and understanding, are part of our problem.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Wise before the event

With Tom Wise awaiting sentencing for fraud, after changing his plea to guilty last week, Daniel Foggo in The Sunday Times gives the background to the case. Neither Wise nor UKIP come out well.

Not least, as Daniel is now able to record, UKIP – contrary to its claims – went to great lengths in an attempt to cover-up Wise's criminal activities. This segment from his article makes particularly interesting reading:

In court, the bearded and bespectacled Wise cut a pathetic figure for a man once elected in the name of a party committed to ending the EU "gravy train", though his arrogance remained intact.

It was a quality that had first struck me four years ago when he had attempted to bluster his way through my questions about his employment of Jenkins. Later, when he had been supposedly "exonerated" by the EU payments office, he had pompously said that my "attack on his character" had not deterred him from his important work. Wise even took legal advice on how to sue a political commentator who wrote blogs on the story, paying for it — although he did not proceed — with taxpayers' money from the same fund he was accused of abusing.

Arrogance is a quality that is not in short supply within UKIP; nor is an ability to dissemble and prevaricate. As Wise awaits a possible jail term at his sentencing this week, who knows which politician and which party will enter the dock next.

Those of us – including this blog – who have seen more of the evidence of misconduct within the Party than has so far been revealed are partially vindicated by Foggo's article. But we are aware that there are many other rotten apples still residing in the barrel.

And it is not enough to say that politicians in other parties are just as venal – if not more so. A central part of the UKIP message has always been that its people were not career politicians, and were above the corruption which disfigures politics and the EU. Such is their self-proclaimed image that they were the major beneficiaries of the MPs' expenses scandal, during the EU parliament elections.

We once had high expectations of UKIP. Wise has tarnished its reputation, and there is more to come. The self-serving behaviour of the "rotten apples", however, should not be allowed to detract from the greater cause.

Their actions do not reflect on the ordinary members, many of whom are hard-working, dedicated and sincere in their efforts to rid us of the occupying power that has become our government. Thieves like Wise do not represent eurosceptics. They are simply parasites who have lined their own pockets at our expense.

COMMENT THREAD

The end of the great deception

The EU has achieved the goal it has worked stealthily towards for so long - a supra-national government which is now beyond our recall, writes Booker in his column today.

He finds it appropriate that, as the trap has snapped shut, he politician who finally let the EU get its constitution should have been Klaus, the veteran anti-Communist. It was he that predicted, just before the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004, that it would mean the end of his country as "an independent sovereign state".

And what a delightful irony, Booker adds, that Pravda, of all newspapers, greeted the news last week with the headline: "Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is now a reincarnation of the Soviet Union".

It will be tomorrow that the EU's leaders gather in Berlin to celebrate the end of that wall, but they will also celebrate the rise of a new one – a wall they have built around themselves, that separates Europe's politicians from all their subject peoples. Bring this forcibly home, Booker then writes:

From December 1, the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. (How long before they give it back its original name, "A Constitution for Europe"?) The EU will at last have the supreme government it has wanted so long – unelected, unaccountable and, as even its own polls show, less popular with those it rules over than ever before. But what do the politicians care? They have the power, and we now have a government we can never dismiss.

Despite Blair and then Brown having been responsible for the surrender, Booker – like this blog – focuses his ire on Cameron. He never wanted a referendum, which would have been a huge embarrassment to him, we are reminded.

His promise of one was a cynical gimmick to curry favour with Eurosceptic voters – a trick he is now repeating with a promise to work for the repatriation of powers which he must know he will never get. To do so would require a new treaty and the agreement of 27 governments to something which, as they are already making abundantly clear, is simply not on offer.

But there is another commonality with Labour and the Lib Dims. Cameron is entirely at one with his counterparts in that none of them must ever admit or explain just how much of Britain's governance has already been given away, leaving Westminster with little more power than a rather grand local council.

None of them will ever discuss this because they all belong to that new Europe-wide political class that governs us from behind its wall, without ever having to ask us for our consent. Booker continues:

In a wistful way it has been amusing to see that former Foreign Office mandarin Sir Christopher Meyer much in evidence of late, bemoaning the way Foreign Office morale has sunk so low because so much of its old power and influence has passed to "other departments in Whitehall". What he means, of course, is that its power has departed not elsewhere in Whitehall but to this amorphous new entity which is even now constructing its own foreign ministry and diplomatic service, with embassies around the world, to replace almost everything of significance our Foreign Office once stood for. This is why the child we now have as our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, can't wait to be part of it.

Three years ago, when he was in Prague to assist President Klaus in launching a Czech edition of The Great Deception, Booker was intrigued to note that outside every Czech ministry there hung two flags, one Czech, the other the EU's ring of stars. It was an honest recognition of how their country was governed, a practice he suggested the British Government should follow.

The only difference now is that our ministries should cease to fly the Union Jack and hoist instead what is officially known in Brussels as "the Union Flag", that same ring of stars which, from December 1, will symbolise the true government we live under.

And a final thought from Booker: since the EU is to become a government with "legal personality" in its own right, how long will it be before its President, under the constitution, is accorded international precedence over the Queen as our head of state? Like much else in this sorry story, our new rulers will start by denying that they are even thinking of such a thing. But now they have their constitution, it can't be long.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Laugh or cry?

Although blogging is somewhat difficult at the moment, I really cannot resist a belated comment on the EU presidency charade, and in particular the Guardian report.

It notes that, while the "ideal appointment" has been suggested as "someone who could stop the traffic in Beijing", with the emergence of the Belgian prime minister, Herman Van Rompuy, as frontrunner, "Europe" may find itself contemplating a president who can barely stop traffic in Brussels.

Actually, it is par for the course. With the EU, contentious agreements are always reached on the basis of the lower common denominator. None of the big boys, especially France and Germany, could put up a president, as that would upset the others, so the candidate had to be one of the "dwarf" states.

Then, it had to be someone trustworthy, and they don't get better than Belgium or Luxembourg ... and it looks as if it going to be Belgium.

Actually, it is going to be very difficult to take Emperor Rompuy seriously, which is perhaps the intention. Behind the scenes, there is a major institutional conflict going on between the European Council and the Commission, for leadership of the EU.

When you think about it, we will have two presidents, one of the European Council and one of the Commission. They can't both be top dog, and a powerful, high-profile figure for the European Council would definitely discomfort the Commission. The choice of a "somewhat anonymous, grey-haired bureaucrat", therefore, definitely puts the Commission in the ascendency.

However, while this man is supposedly the 11-8 favourite, the bartering is by no means over, and yet another figure could emerge. But the process really does prove the point about the anti-democratic credentials of the EU. Only the "colleagues" could pick as their leader a Belgium politician that almost certainly no one would vote for, including the Belgians.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Spitting blood

This is the Daily Mail's "take" on the continuing fall-out from the Tory non-policy on "Europe". It has a lot of the faithful "spitting blood" at Cameron's refusal to offer a referendum, threatening to vote UKIP.

I'll do a proper review of this and other coverage later today. Yesterday, apart from a very successful defence debate in Jersey, I spent some time sitting on the cliffs overlooking Bon Nuit cove, looking at the distant shoreline of France.

Jersey is an island where the memories of the German occupation are still very fresh, and along the coastline there is still the evidence, with a network of huge concrete bunkers and fortified gun positions. I got to thinking about how we are going to handle the new occupation – this one of mainland Britain - as our supreme government takes over on 1 December.

In the manner of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, perhaps we ought to start up the Unpopular Front for the Liberation of Britain (UFFLIB). If we could then get it proscribed as a terrorist organisation, we could apply for Saudi funding and live in exile in Paris on the proceeds.

I think I may have had too much booze. I'll set this post to self-destruct in five hours. Please eat this message after reading. Sanity will be restored shortly.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

The lust for "power"

The Tory leadership, we are told is "delighted" at the smooth reception of "Do-nothing" Dave's non-policy on "Europe".

Looking at the Politics Home snap poll on the issue, however, it can be seen that support is polarised, following orthodox political groupings. Amazingly, Conservative supporters support, er ... Dave. Labour supporters, er ... don't.

Thus, Tim Montgomerie notes that, to a very large extent, the party appears to have recovered its once secret weapon: unity. In other words, in their lust for what they think is "power", the Tory faithful is prepared to swallow any old tosh from the Great Leader, in order to present a unified façade.

By no measure, therefore, does this poll represent a vote of confidence in the non-policy. And the "unity" is, or course, skin deep. As we find in Afghanistan, the tribe unites against the common enemy. Once that is neutralised, the in-fighting starts. James Delingpole offers the obvious way out, but little Dave was never interested in that. Mary Ellen Synon, however, is expecting to hear that patriotic Tories will be found in Conservative Central Office, trying to find the way down to the cellar.

Short of that, the fight for "power" is increasingly a scrap between two bald men fighting over a comb. While Dave postures and prances, power drains away to Brussels. And that, never forget, is what it is all about. Dave might be happy to be a satrap. We would prefer our own government.

And that is all he will be. "The coming into power of the Lisbon Treaty marks the annexation of Europe by Brussels – the expansion of Belgium over an entire continent," says Brussels Journal, and they are not wrong.

It comes to something though when even Pravda notices something amiss. Twenty years ago, one wall came down, but another is being erected - this one between the people and the ruling élites. We are approaching the end game, but all the Tory faithful are interested in is getting their Boy into No 10. Their pitifully limited horizons allow them to see no further.

Yet all they will get is a hollow victory, the trappings of power rather than the substance.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Calling his bluff

There was a sense that the story on "Do-nothing" Dave and his amazing technicolour "Europe” policy was beginning to fizzle out. We've done it to death, although for once we've been addressing our core subject – the one for which this blog was set up.

What now gives it "legs" though is the reaction filtering in from the rest of the member states, which gives us a new and important perspective on the situation.

Unsurprisingly, this comes via The Guardian which, despite its Europhile tendencies, frequently offers depth that you do not find in other newspapers.

What it tells us that, in addition to France – and the obvious reaction from the likes of Elmar Brok – there is real, deeply-entrenched resistance to renegotiating the EU treaties, which will be necessary if Cameron is to achieve the repatriation of any powers.

Up front are the Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic. All three are saying that that Cameron would fail to achieve his demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain because his plans would need to secure the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because they would involve rewriting EU treaties.

And, as Elmar Brok said, "We have had 10 years of institutional debate and now is the time to talk about practical co-operation. We don't need another 10 years of institutional debate."

For the Dutch, Frans Timmermans says that the Tory plans would have a "paralysing effect on Europe". He added: "There is more chance of a snowball surviving hell than the EU restarting debates on treaty change." He adds that no EU leader would want to reopen treaties to accommodate the Tories.

"You can still hear the sigh of relief across Europe that we have finally finished with treaty change," he adds. "Everyone is so relieved that we can finally stop talking about the internal rules of the EU and start doing something about the crisis, something about the climate change issues and something about international affairs." He then adds: "I am sure there is no member state in the EU that wants to put energy into another round of debate about the rules of the game."

Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, the centre-right Polish Europe minister, expands on this, saying treaty change is out of the question. "We have finalised the most difficult and the most lengthy procedure of ratification that we have ever been through in Europe. Nobody wants to negotiate a new treaty."

Then there is Dick Roche, for the Irish. He says: "There is a complete aversion across Europe to the idea of going through the kind of process we have just gone through. If you are talking about areas that touch on free movement or the whole central core trade areas then you are entering into minefields. The only thing that happens to people who enter minefields is they get blown up."

Now, on this blog, both my co-editor and I have been saying this for some time. We are by no means alone in so saying. It was always on the cards – in fact it was a racing certainty – that this would be the reaction. Therefore, the only way there were going to be any treaty negotiations was if Cameron made them the archetypal "offer they couldn't refuse."

Thus, nothing Cameron says or promises by way of repatriating powers has any meaning whatsoever unless he has that "offer", or a very big stick to bring the reluctant "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

From our point of view, what Cameron has on offer, we've heard before. Twenty years ago, Booker, myself and others were talking privately to then senior Tory ministers, all of whom were telling us that they were eurosceptics at heart, and were determined to repatriate powers.

But not any of them – then or now – have been prepared to tells us how they would bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table, and what they would do if they said "no". That is what makes Cameron's policy more of the same – empty and completely devoid of substance. He has no fall-back to deal with a blank refusal to negotiate. And, not days after the Boy's speech, the "colleagues" are ganging up to say "no".

That leaves us in an interesting position. On the one hand, we can accept that the Tories did not expect such a reaction – which can hardly be likely, since they've been told time and time again that this would happen. On the other, we can conclude that the Tories are not serious. That they have no real intention of pursuing renegotiations.

In fact, that is the inescapable conclusion, from which stems the further conclusion. Cameron's policy is no more than a cynical exercise in deception – a rag-bag of empty promises dressed up to make it look plausible to a gullible media and some of the electorate. It is calculated to be sufficient to take the edge of a "eurosceptic rebellion" and get him past the hurdle of the next election without losing too many votes.

That is the real difference between New Labour and the Tories. At least with New Labour, what you see is what you get – a bunch of unprincipled shits. With Cameron's "modern Conservatives", you still get a bunch of unprincipled shits. But they pretend to be otherwise. That is what really sticks in the craw – the pretence.

At least though, with record speed, the "colleagues" have called Cameron's bluff. His "Europe" policy is dead in the water. If there was any justice, so would be his prospects of becoming prime minister. This brazen cynicism really should not go unpunished.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Wise pleads guilty

So says The Times, having changed his plea. I always knew he was a wrong 'un, from the day I drove him to Strasbourg. The guy had no interest at all in fighting the EU – the only thing he talked about was making money. The paper says he could go to prison.

COMMENT THREAD

Surrender monkeys

"Do-nothing" Dave and his "settled" non-policy is coming under a little bit of attack says The Daily Telegraph.

Roger Helmer dismisses Dave's finest hour, declaring: "What we have is an essentially cosmetic policy. We are installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen."

He goes on then to say: "But the British people don't want vague promises. They want the family silver back in good order," adding, ".... I can neither justify nor support our new EU policy."

He has resigned as spokesman for his party in Brussels, as indeed has Daniel Hannan, in order to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum on Europe.

The Lord Tebbit has also weighed in, calling on Mr "Do-nothing" to hold a referendum after he wins "power" to give additional legitimacy to his attempts to repatriate powers from Brussels. I don't think our Norm has quite got it ... Dave has no intention of attempting to repatriate powers.

Nevertheless, the Noble Lord makes a good point. Even if Dave secures 40 percent of the vote in the next general election, low turnout is likely to mean that can claim the active support of no more than about 24 percent of British voters for his European policy.

That, of course, is hardly a strong mandate and, the way it is going., the Boy might even get less. A direct mandate from a referendum would give him added strength ... which is why Mr "Do-nothing" is not going to have a referendum. He wants to park the issue.

On the other side of the coin, we also seem to have some Frog, who goes by the name of Pierre Lellouche, who is describing Dave's policy as "pathetic and autistic" – although not for the same reasons we would. However, it also seems that something has been lost in translation.

But then Dave is probably quite pleased to have flak from the Frog, on the basis that he can balance one lot of criticism against the other. This is a classic BBC trick – if both "extremes" are complaining, they say, then we must be getting it right.

With the Daily Mail in full flow, though – proclaiming that Dave's effluvia represents a "desperately sad moment for British democracy and sovereignty", the response is slightly unbalanced. One Frog does not balance out three million dischuffed Mail readers.

However, Lellouche does illustrate the difficulties that would have faced Dave if he was at all serious. The "colleagues" are most definitely not in the mood to hand back powers, which shows that if we ever get a serious politician leading the Tory party, he will have his work cut out.

Meanwhile, if Steven Glover has his way, the new Tory logo should be a white flag. At least then Dave's surrender monkeys (pictured) will have something in common with the Frogs.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Village idiot

The point about political correspondents from national newspapers is that they are part of the bubble inhabited by politicians. They have no more idea what is going on in the real world than do the politicians they serve.

Thus do we have Benedict Brogan in The Daily Telegraph op-ed telling us that, yesterday, Mr Cameron "took a difficult but necessary step to restore our trust not in politics but politicians, by promising no more than he can deliver."

To have gone further, blathers Brogan – including any sort of promise of a post-election referendum to strengthen his hand in negotiations with Europe – would have invited ridicule. Instead, he says, we had a thought-through, realistic scheme for stopping the drift to ever greater European integration.

We are also told that, "Those holding out hope for a broader referendum over our relations with Europe will have noted his explicit desire to put them on a 'more permanent footing'."

Percolating the brain of this dim little creature, however, is the sense that all is not well with the world. "This policy will not satisfy everyone," he observes blandly. "But it has the merit of being genuinely Eurosceptic and – for once – achievable."

The man is an unmitigated fool. Like the majority of the political claque, he inhabits a different planet from the rest of us, and lacks the intellect and empathy to realise that his own drivel bears no relation to anything even approaching reality.

"This policy will not satisfy everyone," he writes. He can have no idea of the intensity of hatred invoked by that supine, malign, fatuous, smug, self-serving, smarmy renegade called Cameron, and his europhiliac sell-out. "Eurosceptic"? That is like calling the Pope a rabbi. This banal idiot needs taking out and shooting.

But then, I suppose, if Westminster is a "village", every village needs its idiot. Mind you, there is a hellava lot of competition for the post.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Reflections

"As long as he [David Cameron] is at the helm of the Conservative Party, there is no hope whatsoever of achieving any progress in the battle against Brussels."

That is what I wrote on 8 June 2006 but I knew it already. The test came on 7 December 2005 when, at the first available opportunity, the newly appointed Tory leader ditched the carefully crafted policy on repatriating the Common Fisheries Policy.

If we had any lingering doubts, from that time on we had none. "Call me Dave" was not, has never been and will never be a eurosceptic. He follows in that long line of faux eurosceptic Tory leaders, who will talk the talk in an attempt at keeping the troops on side, but will never walk the walk.

At that time in December, little Dave did not even have the guts to admit that he had ditched the policy. He simply reshuffled its creator, Owen Paterson, and nothing was said about it at the time. It took six months before there was any official confirmation. That came on 10 June 2006, which we announced in a post entitled "Never trust a Tory".

We were right then, and right now. Not much more can be said about Dave's surrender to the EU, although it isn't really a surrender. What he did yesterday was his direction of travel all along. That the "colleagues" are beside themselves with joy tells its own story. The Boy has done good by them.

Not only that, they are confirming that there is basically no chance of Dave securing opt-outs to core EU law. German MEP Elmar Brok spells it out, saying, "We have had 10 years of institutional debate and now is the time to talk about practical co-operation. We don't need another 10 years of institutional debate."

He need not have any worries. Dave has no intention of securing anything meaningful. His is indeed a "do-nothing" policy, calculated to give the impression of purposeful activity, while achieving precisely nothing of consequence. Mary Ellen Synon on her blog thus compares Cameron with the Vichy leader, calling him "Dave Pétain".

Somewhere in the French archives, she writes, there is a 1942 poster of the Nazi collaborationist Pétain gesturing out to the people of France and saying: "Francais!, vous n'etes ni vendus ni trahis ni abandonnés. Venez a moi avec confiance" - "Frenchmen! You have not been sold, betrayed or abandoned. Come to me with confidence."

That, of course, is Dave's cry, one that has the Tory Boys (of both sexes) calling in his wake: "We have to get rid of Gordon Brown first ... 'Europe' can wait until we've done that deed." That, of course, means some time never, which is not good enough – nowhere near good enough.

The deal stays: "no referendum, no vote". Dave doesn't want my vote, or the votes of the million-plus who share my views. Well Dave, we don't want you either, so I guess we understand each other.

Very light blogging until Tuesday. I'm off to Jersey on business and a bit of R&R. I'll have the laptop with me, so I should manage one post a day – alcohol haze permitting.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

The Boy at large

FINAL VERSION

David Cameron will promise that an incoming Conservative administration would set up a new constitutional court to protect British sovereignty from encroachment from Europe.

This is according to The Times, which is retailing details of the Boy's briefing to Tory MPs this morning.

He told them that an incoming Conservative administration would immediately seek to pass a Sovereignty Act which would set up a legal body, similar to the German constitutional court, which would rule on future EU proposals.

A senior member of the shadow cabinet told The Times: "Because we don't have a written constitution we have been particularly vulnerable to depredation from Brussels."

This is, of course, total bullshit. We have a written constitution now. It is called the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, which takes precedence over UK law ... and what remains of our constitution.

As for a constitutional court, if this is a measure of what the Boy is going to offer, then he need not bother. What did the German and Czech constitutional courts do, other than roll over?

We also learn that the Boy repeated his promise to seek to repatriate some powers from the EU, but he did not "bow to demands" that he strengthen his negotiating hand by holding a referendum. Nevertheless, fears that the move would precipitate an internal revolt have proved largely groundless.

The Boy was "cheered by his MPs", we are told. But, apparently the Tory whips and key frontbenchers were coordinating the applause. Whether they will still be cheering when the general election results come through is another matter. The loudest cheers might be coming from UKIP.

Howsoever, the Boy geve his press conference at St Steven’s Club, accompanied by William Hague, Liam Fox, George Osborne and Mark Francois. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are to blame for the mess. "Nothing to do with us guv!" says the Boy, but he feels our pain. The betrayal of the promise to hold a referendum (Labour's betrayal) was one of the factors, alongside the expenses crisis, that has caused people to lose their faith in politics.

There is to be no referendum. It would be "a waste of time and money". Instead, the Tories are reverting to a previous promise to close the stable door after the horse has bolted amend the 1972 European Communities Act. This will create a "referendum lock" so that no further powers can be given away without public consent.

Usual Tory fudge, in other words.

And yes, in the door-closing department, we are to get a "UK Sovereignty Bill", to make sure that ultimate authority remains in Westminster. It won't be about striking down EU law. It will just put the UK on a par with Germany, where legislation says the ultimate authority lies with the German parliament. What is this man on?

The Boy also says he will legislate to stop the use of the "ratchet" clauses in the Lisbon treaty that would allow the further transfer of powers without another EU treaty. Again, this is moonshine. The "ratchet" clause already requires parliamentary approval. But, says the Boy, The effect of these changes would be to ensure that a Lisbon situation would happen "never again".

But what about the Lisbon treaty?

Nothing there, it seems, but the Boy is stuck like a cracked gramophone record on repatriating power over social and employment legislation - the so-called "Social Chapter", which no longer exists. He will demand a "proper opt-out" from the charter of fundamental rights. And then, he will seek to limit the ECJ's power over criminal law to pre-Libson levels.

With a quick doffing of the cap to reality, he then admits that these changes would need the agreement of all EU member states. These are "complicated issues", but little Willy is on the case. Success in these negotiations would ensure that EU negotiations do not have to be a "one-way street", he tells us - whatever that means.

These three guarantees are "essential, realistic and deliverable" and the Boy believes "we will be able to negotiate the return of these powers that I have set out." But there is to be no "massive euro bust-up". "We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament." The Boy's priority, if he becomes prime minister, will be the economy.

And if he does not get the opt-outs he requires? Ah! He could return to this at the time of the next election (ie, the one after the 2010). At that point he might discuss a referendum on Britain's relations with the EU.

There it goes ... parked ... he thinks. And thus does the Boy conclude that people are fed up with "endless lies and spin". HE is not going to "treat people like fools" and offer them a referendum that would not have any impact, he says.

Instead, it seems, he is going to treat people like fools in a different way, offering them competely meaningless changes and negotiations that will conclude some time never, with absolutely no indication of how he intends to bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

Asked by Andrew Miller from the Economist asks what "threats" he will use to win back these powers, the Boy confirms his intention to park the issue. He is not trying to win back these powers immediately. But there are treaties coming up - like the Croatian accession treaty - that will provide an opportunity for these issues to be addressed. He thinks.

In any case, his proposals are "practical" - aka meaningless. Thus, he purrs, "there's every chance of achieving these guarantees throughout a parliament".

To the "colleagues", aka "European partners", the Boy says that we do not plan to sabotage the EU with these renegotiations. The idea is "to put Britain's place in Europe on a proper basis that can command the confidence of the British people."

People were told that they were joining a Common Market, but they joined a European Union. The new Conservative policy is a credible policy that voters who have been treated badly can believe in ... he says. And he is convincing who?

Clearly, Ken Clarke is one. He is "fully in support of this policy", says the Boy, which really tells you everything you need to know. However, Clarke is also on record as saying a Sovereignty Bill of the kind proposed by Cameron was "baloney". He is not wrong. "It's a sop, a gesture, worthless and pathetic," says a Tory Boy Blog commentator. He is not wrong either.

And for his closing admission, Cameron says "European leaders" did not like his commitment to a Lisbon referendum. Thus, he was "as frank and clear" with other European leaders as he has been with the people of the UK. Which means they must be as much in the dark as we are.

This is described as "a very clever speech: gradualist Euroscepticism." Lots of vague promises and meaningless fluff. Beef? Forget it. Not just usual Tory fudge - bucket loads. "If this is what he meant by 'will not let it rest, then he's a lying toad," says another Tory Boy Blog commentator. She is not wrong either.

Says Glen Oglaza for Sky News about the Boy's "proposal" to take back power from the EU, "The only problem is that ALL 26 other EU countries would have to agree."

"How likely is that?" he asks. "Well, David Cameron pre-empted the question by asking it himself and offering the answer that these opt-outs would be in the party's manifesto for the election after NEXT - with the promise of a referendum."

"So, basically, this is about buying time and hoping the European problem goes away. Isn't it?" the man concludes. Tim Montgomerie over at Tory Boy Blog agrees. "David Cameron gives every impression of wanting to kick the European issue into the long grass so that he can get on with other things," he says. We could not have put it better ourselves.

Unsurprisingly, Gerald Warner comes to the same conclusion. "Cast-Iron Cameron's latest transparent ploy to kick Europe into the long grass," his piece is headed. All this Tory Euroguff is no more than a device to persuade gullible voters to stay with Dave and his forsworn party. Whether you fall for it or not is a simple intelligence test.

And just to confirm that Boy Dave's "do-nothing" policy on Europe is a busted flush, we have the European Movement welcoming the statement. Peter Luff says, "It makes more sense to deal with the real issues facing Europe right now than to pick an unnecessary and distracting argument with our European partners." Mrs Dale has the answer though. "Those who start spitting about voting UKIP can bugger off and do just that if it makes them feel better," he says.

The full text of the speech is here. The Boy has blown it.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Stuck on stupid

They are wriggling, they are wriggling but it is getting them nowhere except with a decreasing number of blind supporters. First Open Europe, now David Davis. All stuck on stupid. Over on Your Freedom and Ours. Enjoy.

A change of government

When the Nazis marched into Paris in June 1940, the newspapers were not full of explanatory notes, outlining the minutia of the legal changes under the occupation. Quite rightly, they focused on the main event – that the government of the nation had passed to the German invaders and that supreme authority rested in Berlin.

Remarkably though, in anticipation of the coming into force of our new, alien constitution, with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the newspapers in the main concentrate on the minutia of the legal changes under the occupation. They do not remark upon the central change, that our government will on 1 December formally pass from London to Brussels.

The specific instrument of that change is the amended Article 9 of the treaty, which turns the European Council into a formal institution of the Union and creates the supreme government of Europe, involving a very significant transfer of power from member states. Our leaders have been hijacked and impressed into the service of the Union

But the government in Brussels is not our government, any more than the Berlin government of 1940 was the government of the French people. It is a government to which we owe neither loyalty nor obedience.

The big problem is that, on 2 December – the day after the treaty comes into force – nothing will look different. The genius of the "colleagues" is to leave the apparatus of their vassal states in place, to leave the façades intact, but to hollow them out from within. Thus, our prime minister is allowed to keep his title, although his proper designation would be Member of the European Council (MEC), to which he is now responsible.

Bizarrely, this is the one change which the media seems incapable of understanding. More probably, in common with the political claque, they do not want to understand. The implications are too profound, too enormous. So they bury their heads in the sand and go on calling the meetings of our new government a "summit".

In a way, it would be much better if there were storm troopers marching the streets and our public buildings were adorned with the flags of our new government, with the Union Jack banned. But the "colleagues" have learned from that experience. The Vichy model is much more successful and that, with modifications, is the one they have applied.

That then allows for deniability. With the gullibility of the media and the compliance of the gutless political classes, who wilfully deny the reality, the charade will continue for some time yet. But not forever. They cannot hide the truth forever. This 1 December will be a day of infamy. In time, it will be universally recognised for what it is. And it will be remembered for as long as it takes for us to regain our independence.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

The man really is thick

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times recalls the first time he had lunch with David Cameron, when he noticed that he was sporting a pair of EU cufflinks.

This, he says was a striking thing to do in those days, the early 1990s. The Conservative Party was rowing constantly about the EU, and he worked as a special adviser to a eurosceptic cabinet minister.

Naturally, Finkelstein asked him about them. "I don’t think European federalists should have a monopoly on being part of Europe," Cameron replied. And in explaining his choice of cufflinks on that day many years ago, he provided an insight into the position on Europe he has held since. From there, we get Finkelstein's analysis of Cameron's position.

First, he is properly, robustly Eurosceptic while being completely at home with membership of the EU. Second, he has watched as two prime ministers became engulfed by the European issue, which seriously hampered their ability to do anything else. And third, he experienced defeat and policy made for opposition. Now he wants victory and policy that allows him to govern successfully.

It is possible, one assumes, to offer a more facile analysis – but it is difficult to imagine how. From the very start, the idea of a eurosceptic voluntarily wearing the badge of shame is preposterous. That someone also can think of being "part of Europe", while wearing the symbol of the organisation that enslaves "Europe" is equally so. A person who confuses "Europe" with the European Union is not a eurosceptic.

Then, anyone who is "completely at home with membership of the EU" is not a eurosceptic – period. Forget "properly, robustly". They are not eurosceptics.

As for the rest, that tells its own tale. Cameron has seen first-hand the effect of the EU on Conservative Party politics. Now he wants to win an election and is determined not to let "Europe" interfere with his chances of victory.

Cameron is a man without understanding and without principle. He knows nothing about the European Union, and his only interest is in winning. The EU issue is a barrier, a pitfall ... it must be neutralised. That is Cameron's only interest.

And Finkelstein believes he is a eurosceptic? No wonder we find it difficult to make progress. With somebody so unbelievably thick, we are not even past first base.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

It's over

UPDATED (5)

Klaus has signed the treaty. This is just short of eight years since the Laeken Declaration on 15 December 2001, when the Europeabn Council adopted a "Declaration on the Future of Europe", which kick-started the whole charade.

"It marks another step on the road to the 'ever closer union' envisaged in the founding document of the EU," says The Daily Telegraph leader.

The Laeken Declaration said the union needed further reform because "its citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically controlled Community approach". The leaders believed it was essential to tackle the widespread disenchantment about the EU among its people. Yet the manner of the treaty's ratification, certainly here in Britain, has served to worsen, not remove, that sense of disillusion.

As one of our commentators now puts it, the Czech Republic as a sovereign state ceased to exist on November 3rd 2009, 15:00 CET. And so all the member states of the European Union. For the former satellites of the Soviet empire now in the EU, though, this is particularly poignant. Now that they have been subsumed into a new empire, their independence did not even last 20 years.

Now the battle starts, as much with our own side and the enemy within. One notes that The Tory Boy blog has taken to deleting comments. I'm opening up a new comment thread of our own, which I'll keep running, under the heading "Lisbon Treaty". Unlike the freedom-loving Tories, we will not delete posts of which we do not approve.

Talking of "enemies within", it is interesting to see that Reuters is still perpetrating the deceit that this is a "reform" treaty. That is another of those easy lies for which the "colleagues" are notorious, but it is a shame that the news agencies fall in with it.

Barroso, as always, is crowing. "The road has been a marathon of hurdles but the last hurdle is now removed," he says, neglecting of course to say that the main "hurdle" has been the democratic process, which he and his ilk have trampled underfoot.

EU leaders, we are told, can now push ahead full steam with deciding whom to appoint to two jobs outlined in the treaty -- the new post of president of the Council of EU leaders and a foreign policy chief with enhanced powers. There is talk of an ad hoc European Council next week, to fill these new posts. Then we will have faces to the enemy.

This, or course, removes the last possible fig-leaf behind which David Cameron can hide. We are told to expect a policy statement from him tomorrow, and even now there are intensive discussions taking place in the Palace of Westminster.

Barry Legg writes in The Guardian that each step in Cameron's approach towards the EU has been one of shameless contempt for the Eurosceptics who have loyally backed him in a way William Hague could have only dreamt that Ken Clarke, Chris Patten or Michael Heseltine might have behaved.

Despite their best attempts to "park" the issue, "Europe" has come back to bite the Tories, as it always would. With his "dance of the seven veils", however, Cameron has not made it easy for himself, and now he is going to have to come clean. Boy Dave is going to have to grow up and become a man.

That point is not lost on The Times, which has the Tories put "on the spot". Cameron is going to have real trouble with his insistence that he is not reneging on a pledge to give us a referendum. There is no longer a treaty to vote upon, the Tories bleat.

The Independent retails comments from Cameron on London's LBC Radio. Asked whether he had let voters down over the promise of a referendum, he replied: "No, I haven't and I won't."

He adds: "I believe we should have a referendum and we've campaigned for it, we've fought for it, we've put it up front and centre at election campaign after election campaign, we've challenged the Prime Minister about his broken promise in the Commons, we've tried to persuade other European countries not to sign the treaty because we think the British people should be allowed a referendum.

"But if the treaty is signed, if it is implemented, if it is put in place by all 27 countries, then clearly the situation will have changed and we'll have to address that changed situation. It won't be a treaty any more, it will be part of European law. Now, that looks like that is going to happen, I'm very disappointed about that."

And now William Hague has said it was "no longer possible" to put the treaty to a popular vote.

He added: "Now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the president of the European Council, the loss of British national vetoes ... These things will already have happened and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them."


Reuters takes this as an unequivocal declaration that the Tories have walked away from a Lisbon referendum. Of course, Hague knew that this was going to be his response. But he had to play games all these months, pretending that a referendum was still an option.

That fool, James Forsyth, over on the Spectator clog is ramping up the theme that, "The accusations of betrayal being hurled at David Cameron are ... deeply unfair." The Sun promise of a referendum, he says, was always conditional on the treaty not being ratified by the time Cameron got elected.

He, like the Tory Boy Blog, though, seem to have rather selective memories, forgetting the Boy's speech on 26 May 2009, under the title: "Fixing Broken Politics". We will spell it out again:

"A progressive reform agenda," Dave said, "demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people." He went on:

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

On Tory Boy Blog, Jonathan Isaby, who claims to have been a "staunch eurosceptic" since the late 1980s, is lamenting the appearance of UKIP peer Lord Pearson on television. He has been "gloating" about the possibility of robbing 50 Conservative candidates of seats they ought to win next year.

"Therein lies the danger of not getting behind the party leadership on what I trust will be a robust line when he outlines it tomorrow," adds Isaby. And if it isn't a "robust line"? What then? Or will all the Tory Boys be told to believe it is a "robust line" anyway, no matter what they are given?

Gerald Warner is less easy to please. Abandoning the referendum, he writes, is an "historic moment" because it sets a new paradigm in political chicanery: Cameron will become the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments BEFORE even taking office.

It is a measure of the centrifugal force that political deceit has acquired and of the extravagant cynicism of the ruling elite regarding the electorate, Warner adds. Cameron has calculated, possibly correctly, that he can discard a "cast-iron" pledge to the electorate on the most basic issue in politics – the subjection of national sovereignty to foreign powers – and that the mug punters will still turn out and vote him into office. He continues:

Cameron is apparently about to join the historic list of Tory renegades, from Peel to Heath; the difference is, he feels he can rat on his promises even before an election and still win office.

If there is to be any hope for Britain surviving as a sovereign nation true Tories must abandon their Pavlovian voting habits and punish the gang of modernising cuckoos in the Conservative nest. Unless something truly Damascene occurs, Dave is less than 24 hours away from shamelessly declaring himself a forsworn leader. If he does so, the overriding priority in British politics will be to get him out.

That is not an uncommon sentiment, one which we share. With the issue being lead item on Channel 4 News, and the amount of press coverage, reaction has been sharper than we might have anticipated. But this is no longer about "Europe". It is about politicians ratting on promises. And that, to the average punter, is altogether more serious.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

A certain consistency

No one can blame Klaus for not trying. On 22 April 2004, he warned that Czech membership of the EU would signal the end of his country as an independent sovereign state.

He made his comments to the Mlada Fronta Dnes, one of the leading Czech newspapers. They came less than two weeks before the Czech Republic, along with nine other countries, joined the EU.

Klaus spoke of more than a thousand years of history that threatened to be subsumed under the rule of Brussels. He urged his fellow countrymen to do everything possible to preserve the integrity of the Czech state.

That, incidentally, was only the third post we ever published on our then new blog. Over five years and nine thousand posts later, we are writing about Klaus in the same context. He was right then and he is right now.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

A new religion is born

Climate change is now officially a religion. See Archbishop Cranmer for the details. And the heretics shall burn.

A different result?

Not for the first time, we find ourselves making a contrast between the UK and Afghanistan, the latter where president Karzai has been formally re-installed after the run-off election had been cancelled. With the initial election mired in fraud, Karzai resumes office, without a mandate and with no legitimacy.

Inasmuch as it is a state, however, Afghanistan is at least nominally independent – albeit shored up with foreign aid – and, even though the process was mired in fraud, their president was elected. It remains ironic, therefore, that the UK, which is no longer an independent state, is expending blood and treasure to shore up this state, against an insurgency of its own peoples.

As to Karzai being elected, this is more than can be said for the president of our state, the European Union. There, the "colleagues" have found the ultimate answer to preventing electoral fraud. They have simply dispensed with the idea of an election.

But there lies a huge trap. In the fullness of time, as the unelected EU president imposes himself on the scene, siren voices will be heard demanding that we have an elected president, to make the EU more "democratic". The colleagues will, of course, be only too keen to oblige, springing the trap shut on the member nations, as an elected president will then claim the "legitimacy" to rule us all.

To see why this will not be a democratic solution, though, all you have to do is look at Afghanistan. It may be a state, but it is not a country. Its population is fragmented into ethnic and tribal components, which have nothing in common but mutual antagonism.

In the north, you have the Uzbeks, the Tajiks and the Turkamen (amongst others) plus the Aimaks. In the central belt you have the Hazara, and the Pashtuns, who themselves are divided into two rival tribes, the Ghilzai and the Durrani. Then, in the deep south, you have the Balouchi, inhabiting a segment of a formerly independent country which was annexed by Afghanistan in the 19th Century.

The great mistake the "international community" has made, in seeking to impose a democracy on this geographical entity, is to ignore the central requirement, the need for a demos. There is not one in Afghanistan – and there never will be in the foreseeable future.

Likewise, there is no demos in the European Union. In both instances, the advocates of democracy are confusing process for substance. An election does not a democracy make. No more can the EU be democratic than can Afghanistan.

Belatedly, the "international community" has recognised this in Afghanistan, having effectively appointed Karzai to his position, where he remains only for as long as they allow, effectively kept in place by force of arms, the coalition forces increasingly resembling an army of occupation.

But, for some strange reason, no one can see the parallels. The result in Afghanistan is already a central government which is manifestly unable to govern by consent, with the civil war growing in intensity, past the point where there is any serious expectation of a resolution.

Yet the "colleagues" are seeking to impose a single state, with a supreme ruler, on the 27 member states of the EU. Without either a demos or consent, do they expect a different result?

COMMENT THREAD

Unsurprising

As we fully expected the Czech Constitutional Court has found that the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is entirely in agreement with the Czech Constitution. What a surprise, eh? As President Klaus has already been given those meaningless promises (here and here) from the EU, the chances are he will sign and claim a victory for the Czech Republic. In this he will be supported by the majority of the Czech people who will eventually find out how little those promises mean.

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, is unhappy. Klaus, they feel, should have saved them and saved their leader's blushes. For today is the day when the Boy-King of the Conservative Party who is said to be "disappointed" by the Czech court's decision, will set out his party's plans on Europe. It is certain that they will not include a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty. It is also likely that they will include a great deal of vague blather that cannot be turned into hard policy. I suppose, I could be surprised for once.

Tim Montgomerie tells his readers that the Conservatives must have a European policy and announce it as soon as possible.

COMMENT THREAD

The sound of silence

The great fishing disaster rolls on ... recorded each passing year.

This year Scottish fisheries secretary Richard Lochhead estimates that, during 2007, whitefish worth £60 million was discarded in the North Sea – by the British fleet. "When other European fleets are taken into account the problem is compounded greatly," he says, then adding: "It is an utter disgrace that our fishermen are being forced to dump high quality and marketable fish back into the sea - hundreds of millions of pounds wasted and unnecessary pressure on our stocks due to the crazy rules of the CFP."

And the Tory policy on the CFP is? We know what it was, but that was before the great eurosceptic Dave intervened. All we hear now is the sound of silence.

COMMENT THREAD

Not part of the blogosphere

In a follow-up to the his piece on Cameron backtracking on the constitutional Lisbon Treaty, Tim Montgomerie was basking in the limelight, recording the "blogosphere" reaction to his revelation ... which had actually been circulating for some time - starting in early October.

Tim's idea of the "blogsphere", however, is three MSM "clogs", Iain Dale and Guido. Despite two reaction pieces on this blog, one from my co-editor and the other from myself, EU Referendum - the premier anti-EU site - does not exist. It does not get a mention, much less a link.

We find the same with Defence of the Realm. We get a lot of links from US, Canadian and other foreign sites (and some of the smaller British blogs), but never any from the self-proclaimed "big-hitters" in the British political blogosphere. And that is despite a readership in the corridors of power that the likes of Dale would kill for. (How do you think we are so well-informed?)

But that is how it is. We've broken ranks many times, and criticised blogs – on the basis that no-one is beyond criticism. But, while the blogs love to criticise the MSM, they can't take it themselves. Step outside the claque and they go shrieking to mummy, and then bury their heads deeply in the sand, from which posture they commune with themselves – and only themselves – through the only orifices left exposed to the air.

Largely, the "independent" political blogosphere has chosen to shackle itself to the corpse of the MSM, which is why it accepts the "clogs" into its closed little club. It is also why the British blogosphere largely follows rather than makes the agenda, and has neither the reach nor the influence that characterises the US blogosphere.

And, do you know what? We don't give a damn. We are on the outside. That is where we belong, and are happy to be there. We tell it as we see it, not for the self-referential claque which demands as the price of its approval a degree of conformity and an absence of informed criticism that no censor could impose.

Just occasionally though, it is quite fun tweaking their tails ... whence they resolutely ignore us with even more determination, ramming their heads further into the sand. But we don't do it too often these days – it is too much of a waste of energy. As the media start picking up on Dave's betrayal though, as it is now doing, things are going to get very dirty and very nasty. That will sort the sheep from the goats, and the "clogs" from the blogs. And we know where we stand. We know our place.

Apologises for the light blogging, incidentally – some rather sombre family business to attend to. That probably also explains the mood of this post. Sometimes, events happen which make you think hard about where you stand. Some things which you thought very important, suddenly are not so important. Others become more so. The little bloggy-weenies can play their games. To put it bluntly, we don't give a shit. We'll be back on the treadmill later today, with more posts for the timorous wee bloggies to ignore.

COMMENT THREAD

A tale of two issues

Just fifteen percent of people in Britain worry about climate change and how the world responds to the problem - down from 26 percent last year. It scores less than Gordon Brown

By contrast, in a Guardian/ICM poll in May, 22 percent indicated that "Europe" was the chief concern.

In other words, despite the global hype and their best efforts to ramp up the fear, stretching back two decades, the warmists and the politicians have failed to covert us to their bullshit religion.

How interesting then it is that the politicians tell us that the EU is not an issue, because it consistently features low in the list of voters concerns. And that is with them doing their best to keep it on the back-burner. Yet, despite the low ranking of global warming, they rush around like headless chickens, ordering us to change our life-styles, give them lots of money, fill our gardens and streets with recycling bins ... etc., etc.

This has to tell you something about politicians. And we are not alone. Worldwide, the number of people "worrying" about global warming has fallen by eight percent to just over a third in the last year. The figure in the US is only 18 percent. In Australia it is 22 percent.

For the UK though, nothing better illustrates the disconnect between the people and the politicians. Their concerns are not our concerns. Our concerns are not their concern. And that is why so many people are not concerned about them.

Soon enough, that lack of concern will express itself as something more tangible than a low turnout in elections. The political system is living on borrowed time.

COMMENT THREAD

He doth squirm too much

Note the penultimate item ... no mention of ratification there (click the pic to enlarge). And then there was the speech by Dave on 26 May 2009, under the title: "Fixing Broken Politics".

"A progressive reform agenda," Dave said, "demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people." He went on:

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

Once again, there is no mention of the referendum being conditional on the treaty not being ratified. Methinks little Tim Montgomerie doth squirm too much.

The fact is that Dave promised a referendum ... not once, but several times. There was no mention of that being conditional on the treaty not being ratified.

And those sages who bleat that a referendum would be closing the door after the horse has bolted are missing the point. Politics is as much about symbolism as it is practicalities. The "folk" memory is that Dave promised a referendum. The Sun readers didn't look at the small print. Now, "Tory Toff Dave" will be seen as just another slimy politician who doesn't keep his word - which is exactly what he is.

The point here is that, even if the merits of a referendum are entirely symbolic, that does not make them unimportant. Apart from lodging Dave in the public mind as a man who kept his word, a strong "no" result would strengthen his hand with the "colleagues" who would find it harder to reject an IGC when there was a referendum "mandate".

A mere manifesto commitment, buried in the welter of general election promises – which seems to be the new offer - does not have the same strength. This will undoubtedly cost Dave votes, although he thinks he can do without us. That is the bottom line, but – of course – we will not leave it there.

COMMENT THREAD

It is official

The Tories will NOT hold a referendum on Lisbon but seek a 'manifesto mandate' to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU - so says Conservative Home in a shock announcement. And I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

So where do we go from here? Or to be quite precise, where does the Conservative Party go? According to Tim Montgomerie, there is no point in holding David Cameron to his "cast-iron guarantee" as it was nothing of the kind. Once again, I am shocked, nay, stunned. A politician's cast-iron guarantee means nothing of the kind? Quick, somebody bring my smelling salts.

As it happens, I never believed that guarantee and have always assumed that Cameron would find some way of wriggling out of it. It was, Mr Montgomerie informs us, merely a promise to hold a referendum if the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty had not been ratified. As they did their best to make sure that the ratification went ahead their hoity-toity attitude now is unimpressive.

Nor am I terribly impressed by the implication that it was all the fault of the u-turning Czech President. He withstood a great deal of pressure with very little support from the Conservatives. I don't think he got much in that funny little agreement but that's another story. What happens in Britain does not depend on what the Czech President does or says. Blaming Klaus for Cameron's prevarications is low. I am surprised at Mr Montgomerie who is an honourable man.

What is it the Conservatives will be offering? What is it that makes Mr Montgomerie say that "DAVID CAMERON DESERVES THE CONTINUING SUPPORT OF EUROSCEPTICS"? Well, he took the Conservative Party out of the EPP and withstood the childish taunts produced by David Miliband, which were of no significance whatsoever. That's it. There is nothing else anyone can point to that would make us the people think that this man actually understands either the EU or Britain's role in it or, for that matter, what should be the next step.

Let us not forget that one of his first moves as leader was to drop the carefully worked out fishing policy that would have taken Britain's fisheries out of the devastating CFP and rebuilt the industry.

What they want to do is to get a mandate to repatriate certain powers. This would mean unravelling the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Constitutional Lisbon one, rewriting the whole lot and getting all the members to agree. Child's play for people who do not think they can unravel the Lisbon Treaty on its own. Particularly as the ultimate threat is not on the cards.

There is, of course, no need for a referendum about whether to renegotiate the treaties or not. It can be simply put into the manifesto, as one remarkably intelligent (I have low expectations) Tory backbencher told Mr Montgomerie. But simply saying that we shall go to Brussels and negotiate something or other gets us no further forward.

What will be renegotiated? Key powers, apparently. What are they, when at home? Well, errrm, the Social Chapter. That no longer exists, the various articles having been integrated into the treaty. What of the most important issue, the superiority of European over British legislation? So far, Parliament, who made that law can unmake it. What happens after Lisbon? More to the point, what is the Conservative Party's intention over that? Is that one of the key powers to be negotiated?

With whom is Mr Cameron going to negotiate? Does he even know? What he has in mind requires an IGC and unanimous agreement? Does he know that? Do any of them know how an IGC is called and how the negotiations are set up? More importantly, what will the Conservatives do if the colleagues do not want an IGC or, having gathered for one, refuse to accept British ideas? Will they start running around, negotiating, offering deals to the other member states?

So many questions, so few answers. Well, only one, really: you must trust the leader and his wisdom.

COMMENT THREAD

The bigger picture

The Financial Times notes how "Britain's armed forces have for years been dogged by stories of how troops operating in dangerous places are seriously under-resourced, lacking the equipment and training they need."

In terms of seeking improvements, this paper then makes the obvious but necessary point that the starting point should be the promised Strategic Defence Review. But, it says, the next government must do more than this. It must also reform how the MoD spends money. Safety, inter alia can only be guaranteed if money is not being frittered away elsewhere.

Thus does this newspaper come to the same conclusion that we have been urging on the defence establishment for years. For instance, on 8 November 2007, when former CDS Charles Guthrie was demanding more money for defence – to the applause of the political claque and the phalanx of media commentators, our tiny voice was asking: "How about value for money?"

Read more on Defence of the Realm.

Updates

The latest in Iceland, that presidency and what exactly did the EU agree to in order to get President Klaus's signature, over on Your Freedom and Ours.

We don't do comedy

But, if we did, it would look a bit like this. Chris Bryant in the Independent on Sunday writing about Dave Cameron's problems on "Europe".

"Such is the visceral anti-Europeanism in his party," Bryant writes, "ever since he became leader of the Tories he's had to keep on suggesting that he would hold a special referendum on the Lisbon treaty, even if it has been ratified and brought into force."

But then it stops being comedy and turns to tragedy and farce in equal measure. What can we make of it? I almost feel sorry for Dave ... any which way he turns, he's heading the wrong way up a one-way street.

COMMENT THREAD