For readers awaiting news of my email to David Cameron I have to admit that after writing of my intentions I realised that a Prime Ministerial statement on the recent EU Council was due; so consequently decided to wait for this; which I need not have done – but I digress, to a certain extent. Anyway, my intention to email David Cameron remains, but requires a tad more thought than originally envisaged in that I hope the response that I will receive will result in him digging a bigger pit for himself – bigger to that he dug in response to my dossier.

When we read the Hansard report, we find that ‘matters Tunisia’ occupied most of Cameron’s statement – that is not to say that that is not important nor that events there were not terrible, however it is my contention that so are ‘matters EU’ just as important. According to Speaker Bercow there were 70 questions to Cameron, yet there were only, to my count, 6 on ‘matters EU.

William Cash (col 1187): I join the Prime Minister in expressing strong words in condemnation of the evil slaughter of British citizens and others in Tunisia and in condolence for the bereaved. At the European Council meeting, today and recently my right hon. Friend rightly reaffirmed the Common Market, British courts for British laws, the sovereignty and accountability of our national Parliament and the fundamental change in our relationship with the EU and the eurozone to which many will say yes, yes, yes. He has been buffeted by criticism from other European leaders, who are clearly not listening and who are demanding more integration rather than less. Hope springs eternal, but given his firm objectives in our vital national interests and the EU leaders’ constant criticism of them, what would it take for my right hon. Friend to recommend a no vote?

Batted away by Cameron.

Philip Davies (col 1194): Every year the EU is a smaller and smaller part of the world’s economy, its currency is a basket case, it is undemocratic and its free movement of people makes it easier for terrorists and other criminals to enter the UK from other parts of the EU. Rather than faffing about with a renegotiation when we know the Prime Minister is going to get next to nothing but dress it up as a great triumph, may I suggest that he would be better employed negotiating the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union?

Batted away by Cameron.

Bernard Jenkin (col 1195): Will the Prime Minister explain how a mere promise of treaty change can be made legally binding? (background to this question here)

Batted away by Cameron.

David Nuttall (col 1197): Will the Prime Minister please pass on my thanks to his fellow European Union leaders? Every time one of them refuses to agree to one of his very modest requests in the renegotiation process, they make the task of those of us who argue this country would be better off outside the EU just that very little bit easier.

Batted away by Cameron.

Graham Stringer (col 1197): Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said he wanted proper, full-on treaty change. How can we take his negotiations seriously when he has dropped this reasonable demand in the first round of negotiations?

Batted away by Cameron.

Peter Bone (col 1200): Today, the Prime Minister has said that he will put the common market at the heart of our EU membership. I am sure that the British people—and myself—will be shoulder to shoulder with him on that. Why do the British media say that he cannot do this, when I know that he will not accept anything less than fundamental reform and a common market?

Batted away by Cameron.

It would seem that events handed Cameron a ”heaven sent’ opportunity to divert the attention of MPs from a subject on which he would rather not face questions and that when he did it also allowed him to ‘bat them away’ as not worthy when considering the events in Tunisia. This begs the question: was his statement not so designed?

Another point to consider: Why were the questions on ‘matters EU’ so framed? The questions posed must have meant that those asking knew damn well they would not be answered – so why ask them in the form they were? (mind you, ‘homing in’ on that from Philip Davies – is ‘faffing about’ ‘parliamentary language’?

Cynic? Mais oui, c’est moi!

I note that in his statement Cameron yet again repeated that he had cut the EU budget, refraining from his other boast that he had vetoed a treaty. I await with rising excitement for the day when Cameron mentions once again that he vetoed a treaty; and for an MP to rise and ask: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated he vetoed a [EU} treaty. For this to have happened, there would have had to be a treaty ‘on the table’. If this is correct, perhaps the Prime Minister would enlighten the House with the venue and dates the Convention and Inter-Governmental Conference, that would have both been necessary, took place – but I digress as it becomes increasingly obvious that such a question is above the pay-grade of those that sit on the Green Benches.

In common with the rest of his political class, Daniel Hannan seems to be another asking purile questions, for he writes: Because the word “sovereignty” has slightly fusty connotations, many British Eurosceptics prefer to speak of “democratic control” or “democratic accountability”. But it’s sovereignty we mean. We want, for example, to be able to determine who can enter our country and on what terms. But if MPs legislated to create an Australian-style points-based system, in which EU nationals were no longer privileged over Commonwealth citizens, Brussels wouldn’t have to take Britain to court. The legislation would simply be disapplied by our own courts the moment an EU citizen who had been denied entry claimed the right to reside here.

Just who is this ‘We’, Mr. Hannan – the ‘select’ 650, or those that actually own this country? Hannan stands further condemned when he writes:

How would the recovery of sovereignty practically change things? It would mean that EU legal acts would come into effect in the UK only following specific implementing legislation by Parliament – something that is currently the case in some instances, but not all. This change may seem technical, but it would almost certainly curb the judicial activism of the ECJ and the power-hunger of the European Commission. More to the point, it would formally recognise that the United Kingdom’s relationship to the EU was that of a sovereign nation in voluntary association with others, not that of a province within a European polity. Would such a change be enough to convince me to stay in the EU? Potentially, yes; especially if it were part of the wider reform package outlined by the PM in his Prague and Bloomberg speeches, involving the repatriation of significant powers.

So Hannan, having prattled away about ‘sovereignty’, wants a ‘repatriation of significant powers’; appearing content that by leaving just a few of our powers still with Brussels, the UK regains its sovereignty? The boy needs to grow up, while relearning the meaning of ‘sovereignty’.

An interesting article has appeared from Norman Tebbitt, one in which he opines that there appears little chance of one organisation campagning for ‘Out’ while also saying that to bring all the disparate groups together would be harder than herding cats. This, I and others, know only too well – however, attempts to so do, continue.

It is also noted that Mark Elborne, head of General Electric for the UK and Ireland, has joined David Frost, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association in regard to the confusion between Single Market participation and EU membership.

The merry-go-round continues in respect of this country’s membership of the EU, with claim and counter claim among the political class and their media friends, all of which just scratches the surface thus being superficial in content. In this context I can but repeat my views made here – which attracted no comments whatsoever.

Norman Tebbitt may well be right when he writes that the political pot is not yet simmering but will surely come to the boil over the next couple of years, perhaps with results surprising us all. Hopefully in the not too distant future a rod will be inserted into the cogs of the merry-go-round mechanism which will bring that to a grinding halt and cause the pot to boil – and that could well be not that far away.