Andrew Lilico, writing on Conservative Home, argues that David Cameron may well end up campaigning on the ‘No’ side – on the basis he has stated that: ‘he rules nothing out‘.

Lilico ends his article thus: The Prime Minister has secured a majority, is delivering the referendum and will now seek a renegotiation. Whilst he’s doing that we should give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his sincerity over the need to secure significant concessions if he is to campaign for us to stay In.

If one ‘googles’ the word ‘sincerity‘ it is found the definition given is: the absence of pretence, deceit, or hypocrisy. As a result exception can be taken to Liico’s use of the word ‘sincerity’ for Cameron is guilty of pretence, deceit and hyrocrisy.

It is necessary, at this point, to remind readers of this article, one in which I repudiated what Lilico refers to as sincerity. Cameron is guilty of pretence, deceit and hyprocrisy; there was no treaty, there was no reduction in the EU budget; and there was no ‘bail-out’ per se.

Relating still to the dossier, if Cameron maintains that ‘ever closer union’ has been negated where the United Kingdom is concerned, why does he still maintain that that is one of his demands?

If Cameron truly believed of what the United Kingdom, as a nation, can achieve; If he believed in ‘sovereignty’; if he believed in the words he spoke on the steps of Downing Street in May 2010, he would not be attempting a renegotiation of the non-negotiable, he would not be attempting to interfere and influence the result of the forthcoming referendum, neither would he continue with his faux ‘sincerity’.

A further point needs raising: should Cameron return with his ‘Chamberlain’ piece of paper, one which contains a promise of acceptance for his demands and which will be incorporated in the next ‘treaty change’ – and if the fine print of said ‘treaty change’ does not deliver that which he had been promised, does this not warrant another referendum; and does he intend enshrining this in another Act of Parliament? This is a point not covered by Dominic Cummings in his article: Exit plans and a second referendum.

On the point raised in the preceding paragraph, should that scenario arise; how do we force the politicians to agree? The plain fact is that we cannot as the people are not ‘sovereign’ under our current system of representative democracy. Now, if we had the system of direct democracy as encapsulated in The Harrogate Agenda, it would be a ‘different story’, would it not?

David Cameron is not the only politician ‘misleading’ the electorate – they are all at it, using ‘resources’ and ‘information’ that suits their own arguments. In this regard I would point readers to this article by Richard North, one in which he quite correctly castigates those ‘leading lights of political eurosceptism’, namely William Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin. Presumably they are also ‘sincere’ in that which they profer for public consumption? Plus the point needs to be made that the media faithfully repeat that which we are told, due to the fact that they have not the slightest knowledge on that which they supposedly report. A further question: if ‘the trio’ truly wanted the British people to be sovereign should they not have adopted the aims of The Harrogate Agenda?

One can but repeat: with the misinformation and the lies that are being put out by various factions on both sides of the argument: we will still have a free and fair referendum?

Of course we will – and the moon is made of cheese, which we know damn well it is not!