There are similarities with the way that the media rarely asked Blair what would happen if Iraq did allow weapons’ inspections, if no weapons were found and if there was no second resolution. And then acted as if these scenarios were completely unexpected. The media have got in the habit of printing what political leaders say, and failing to notice what they don’t say.

Hannan hasn’t really resigned. He’s still an MEP.

The people I’m really angry with over this are the Labour party for creating a situation in which these blasted people are almost guaranteed to walk into power in a few months time.

“The right-wing French government is calling Cameron’s moves “pathetic”.”

Methinks that will backfire.

I think you might have to expand a bit further on why you think this policy is a joke – other than the fact that Will Straw and the French don’t like it.

I’m surprised also that your view of Fraser Nelson has changed so quickly…

The policy itself seems to me both predictable and pretty much the only one open to Cameron. Its main task is to split the Eurosceptics (like himself) who are, presumably, open to reason as to what reforms are necessary to make EU membership in Britain’s interest – and which of us would care to say that it doesn’t need any? – from the Europhobes like Hannan.

And have we all forgotten (except those who were too young, of course) of the discipline which Mandelson and Campbell exerted over their party in the mid-1990s, including banning Labour candidates from reading the Guardian or the Mirror? Cameron’s discipline looks mild in comparison.

His problems will arise in government. Pretty much the only thing we know about a Cameron government is that it won’t be Europhobic, if only because Europhobia is simply the middle-class variant of racism. The question is how much more virulence the racism meme – which infected less than 10% of people when Blair took office, and now infects every other white person in the country – has left in it.

People laugh when I hypothesize an electoral pact between UKIP and the BNP at the election after next, and I truly hope those parties really are too stupid to manage it (or that UKIP is – I’m pretty sure it’s BNP policy already) but self-interest is a powerful driver.

It strikes me as *very* clever politics from David Cameron. It’s Eurosceptic, but puts clear blue water between the Party and the BOO brigade, but also the appeasement-happy LibLab bloc.

It frees up David Cameron to pursue a Eurosceptic agenda the British People can get behind, without it being a major issue, and without jeaopardising the single market.

It sends a clear message that the Conservative Party will not withdraw from the EU, but also considers integration to have gone far enough. It outlines key areas where we expect to repatriate powers.

And it does all this whilst remaining a full member of the EU and with the backing of the party.

The more I think about it, the more I realise it’s astonishingly clever politics. I sense the involvement of the master strategic hand of George Osborne.

Also, Sunny, I know your deep-seated hatred of us Tories knows no bounds.

But this article seems to be simultaneously arguing that we have both a schism (between those who dislike the EU and those who dislike the EU) and at the same time, NO SPLIT AT ALL.

It’s either a schism, or a shocking display of unity. Pick one.

You can’t really have it both ways. Though by god, you’re clearly gonna try.

@6

You sound a little like Rush Limbaugh going weak at the knees for Sarah Palin. Talk about “dogmatic lefties” – projection much?

@bluepillnation

I don’t deny that it’s all gushy and fanboyish. However, it still looks to me like a pitch-perfect piece of political positioning. Dare I say, almost early-era Blair in the skill of its politicking.

“All they did was try to ride the populist tabloid outrage at Euro-myths.”

Most sensible Eurosceptics ignore this nonsense and focus on the aspects of the EU that aren’t myths – the wastage caused by the CAP, the fact that the UK has surrendered some control over social and employment education to the EU, the fact that we’re compelled to put tariffs on goods from outside of the EU.

Seeing as the last of these does a great deal of harm to the third world I’m genuinely surprised the Left doesn’t kick up more of a fuss about it.

@9 “a pitch-perfect piece of political positioning”

…with a complete absence of substance.

Get used to it, folks! He’s going to land up as PM with no clue what to do and a compass that points in the wrong direction.

@9

I daresay Smiley Dave could probably goose-step up and down outside the gates of Parliament, naked but for an SS officer’s cap, masturbating furiously into a Union Jack and you’d still say it was a masterful bit of politics.

The man is an empty shell with a thinly-disguised mean streak, but I bet you’re looking forward to that kind of governance with glee, aren’t you?

Right-wingers – as long as someone’s wrose-off than them, they’re happy.

Richard, doesn’t the CAP also harm the third world?

Sunny, you forgot that the French called the Tories autistic as well as pathetic, not that the two ideas are connected of course.

And bluepillnation I’m loving your work on the fanboy that is Martin Coxall.

@DHG:

Believe me, I love it too. Tories come here because undirected rage and abuse we get is a great way to throw our callous, heartless exteriors into sharper relief.

Sunny (and the rest of the loon wing):

Do you think it was acceptable of Frenchy to use “autistic” as a political point-scoring insult? Whither the condemnation?

Martin Coxall:

I’m sure you do love it, in a gritted teeth kind of way as your passive following of the blue army leads you to compromising positions, that you’d mock anyone on the left contorting themselves into.

And actually I think Tories come here to spread their peacock feathers and display plumage rather than anything constructive. Also, playing victim only makes me think of the BNP, deal with it (not that I’ve seen undirected rage here or abuse) or move on.

It’s also very funny how in a comment looking for criticism of the use of term autism, you use the word loon.

You couldn’t make it up…

@DHG

I have no great problem with the use of the word “autistic” is a political label.

It is, however, normally the sort of thing that gets the more excitable leftie frothing with self-righteous faux outrage. Except, apparently, not when directed at a Tory, isn’t it. I’d be tempted to cry “hypocrisy”, but that’s a charge that has little resonance with your sort.

Still, “Frenchy has a rant, makes a tit of himself” is barely news, so no harm done.

I come here because (a) I’ve always loved a good barney, and (b) LibCon amuses me. Especially Sunny. He’s a one-stop shop of endless self-righteous mirth for right wingers. A gift that keeps on giving.

How can it be ‘undirected rage’ if it’s aimed at Tories?

@16. Coxall, your eyes are still swivelling, mate.

Yeah the French can use the term autistic if it suits. As it does in this case.

And contrary to Richard @3 – given the hysterical explosion of characteristic europhobe stupidity in the last 48 hours, I bet the well targetted French government criticisms don’t “backfire” (as if they’d care that they did anyway).

Martin Coxall:

Nice to see you playing the ‘common sense’ card so favoured of the Daily Fail, speaks volumes, as does you sprawling and clumsy generalisation of ‘lefties’.

So you were baiting then?

Lovely stuff.

And then you cry hypocrisy? Good grief, I don’t know where to look while you’re fumbling about over here under the pretense of doing so ‘for a laugh’ I mean that old chestnut is as as worn out as the lines you vomit.

20 – it’s a deal. Provided Tories can still call Gordon autistic without Sunny exploding in a paroxysm of fury.

Mind you, it’s not as if the English historically have cared much what the French think about them is it?

Good old Tonga Tim bounds in with a sense of gleeful joy at being able to carry on smearing Gordon Brown, putting him in an elite group of tits.

Well, either a phrase is insulting and unacceptable or it isn’t surely? It would be a bit silly if your position ended up being that it’s fine to use a phrase about Tory politicians but unacceptable and appalling to use it against Labour politicians.

Anyway, I’m a big fan of Gordon Brown, and think that his remaining Labour leader until the election is the best thing that could happen to the country.

Cameron’s position before final ratification of the Lisbon treaty was dishonest.

His analysis of what could be done about Lisbon was dishonest

His rationale for not holding an election on continued EU membership was dishonest.

The proposals contained in his speech yesterday were dishonest, disingenuous and insulting to the intelligence both of his those in his party and the electorate..

After 12 years of dishonesty, it is pretty depressing to be looking forward to a further five years of this sort of stuff.

@DHG

Who mentioned Common Sense? More to the point, (a) who cares what the Daily Heil thinks, and (b) have you noticed that they are furious with Dave’s new Euro-policy. Which should give you some sense that it’s not a bad thing at all.

And yes, of course I’m baiting. This is LibCon. Who the fuck here isn’t?

@Tim J

It’s as I thought. An insult is only an insult when used against a leftie. Used against us baby-eating “swivel-eyed” Tories, it’s fair game.

No Tonga Tim, it isn’t, words as you may know are complex things with complex effects and different meanings to different people and different uses and…the list goes on.

Each case judged on its merits is perhaps the best way to move forward on this one.

Glad you’re a fan of Brown. I’m not.

Tim J – the faux-naïf act isn’t really working, I’m afraid. Better change tack.

Martin Coxall:

Who mentioned Common Sense? I did but it was inferred in your comment and attitude in your previous comments. With regards to the Daily Fail, you sounded like you could move right in there, that’s all.

“And yes, of course I’m baiting. This is LibCon. Who the fuck here isn’t?”

Lots of us just trying to have a chat, baiting is boring.

And I wouldn’t get too close to Tonga Tim in your efforts to invent points here that haven’t even been made, your asides can be seen by all.

@DHG

not that I’ve seen undirected rage here or abuse

I can’t believe you said that………

Hi pagar, as you’ve been perpetuating some myths about me be real good if we could clear it up perhaps via email? My address is on my blog profile, I’d appreciate it if we could clear a few matters up.

Also, the comment was in relation to this thread, Neil has already debunked the ‘undirected’ thing and abuse is used by many people here.

“Do you think it was acceptable of Frenchy to use “autistic” as a political point-scoring insult? Whither the condemnation?”

No, it was a totally retarded thing to do.

@DHG:

The Mail was opposed to Dave’s new policy. I supported it.

On a related note, serial LibCon enrage Mad Mel’s very cross with Dave: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5506381/britains-quisling-party.thtml

Martin Coxall:

You’re missing the point which is fine, it’s my point for you to miss, your tone and phrasing reminds me of the Mail, not your policy stance.

Donut:

As always, you get the point.

@29: “Lots of us just trying to have a chat, baiting is boring.”

Absolutely. There’s a vacant space for a fruitful discussion about the powers and functions of the EU, especially now with the lingering consequences of the financial crisis where concerted policies are more effective, or even essential, counter measures than unilateralist strategies.

The really worrying aspect about all this is that the Conservatives have no insight into the fundamental economic issues and are obsessively engaged in playing silly party games to assuage a loony internal fringe.

@DHG:

My tone is entirely appropriate for LibCon.

Through the fire and the flames we carry on.

27/28 – you’re making a distinction that simply doesn’t exist. Either ‘autistic’ is a valid term in political debate or it isn’t. There was a whole thread on this here a while back. Consensus then (among lefties anyway) was that it was an offensive, inaccurate and unacceptable form of debate.

That’s not false naivety at all. It’s a simple statement of the obvious.

“you’re making a distinction that simply doesn’t exist”

Yes, It does. You, Tim J are clearly no idiot. However, you occasionally say idiotic things.

So, have we now established that using developmental disorders as a term of abuse is an acceptable way to make political point-scoring?

Is it now 100% acceptable to say “Gordon Brown is a retard”?

Bob B

Agreed.

Martin Coxall:

Not agreed.

Tonga Tim:

You are running before you’re walking on this, taking the idea in an order to score pointless points. You can’t make a cast iron rule that the term autistic does not have a place in a serious political debate, I think they only thing I could say on the matter is that context is crucial and that caution has to be shown.

As for the thread you refer to, if I recall it was a bit more complicated than that, you’re generalising the details and in an issue like this such details are crucial.

38 – now there is a distinction that does exist!

I’m surprised, incidentally, that there’s no discussion/thread here on what the new Conservative policy on the EU is. It seems to me that it raises quite a few interesting political and legal points. Shame if it gets lost in the question of whether we approve of shrill French politicians and their terms of debate.

BTW, ‘retarded’ means ‘delayed’.

Martin Coxall:

Seriously duck, stop baiting, it’s becoming a drag.

One of the nice things about Airbuses, which are of course French, is that as a plan comes into land, just before touching the runway, the plane starts screaming “Retard! Retard!” at the pilot.

All of which has no relevance whatsoever to my point. Which is that I don’t think it’s necessarily inappropriate for our cheese eating surrender monkey chums to call us autistic, but let’s face it, it’s not going to convert anyone to your cause, and isn’t going to do much for Anglo-French relations when we become the government next spring.

See 43.

I think the baiting is amusing because it shows up the Tories to be even more fatuous than we think.

Of course its good politics because most of the Eurosceptic wing will buy it and shut up. Just like the left shut up while Blair said it was better to be in power than out. I just can’t wait for the cries of betrayal to get louder once they’re in power. Right now they’re muted because of anticipation.

5. Mike Killingworth. So middle class people who volunteered to fight in WW2 without waiting to be called up; served in front line units and are sceptical about the EU, are racists ?

You sound almost disappointed, Sunny.

Is that because Labour’s last, best hope of stopping the Tories, the fabled Euro-split, has evaporated like so many other Labour dreams?

Was this it? Europe was your last shot at the Tories, and now there’s nowt left in the pot? Pity.

Also, fatuous is a rather odd choice of word for a group of people you seem to accept have outmanouvred and outclassed you politically at every turn. Unless you deep down believe that Gordon still has some Super Sekrit Weapon to foist five more years of one-eyed Scottish idiocy on an undeserving electorate, and for some inadequately explained reason hasn’t got round to deploing it yet?

OK Let’s talk about Dan Hannan.

Anyone for a politician with some principles?

46 – I think the point is that whatever Cameron has done, he hasn’t ‘betrayed’ the Eurosceptics. This is largely because there is no Eurosceptic ‘wing’ of the party any more (or if there is, this is one lop-sided bird).

Now that the Lisbon Treaty has become embodied in European law, there is no practical way to have a referendum on it, which is why one was never promised after ratification (’we will not let matters rest…’). Since the BOO tendency remains a minority position within the party (and the country too), there can be little surprise that Cameron has not committed to an in-or-out referendum.

Instead he has set out a policy that seeks to establish the legal power to override European law (which is best viewed as loading your weapon before you need to fire it) and also embedded legislation that would make it politically very difficult for any future Government to cede more powers. That satisfies more or less everyone in the party.

Incidentally, on Dan Hannan – do you now accept that, rather than being the beating heart and guiding light of the Conservative Party, he is instead an (articulate and intelligent) outlier?

Dan Hannan’s a drama queen, first and foremost. That’s not a principle, so much as a statement of intent.

It’s not to his credit that he couldn’t work out he was playing straight into Dave’s hands last night.

When French people come to this country, they are also amused by the amount of shop windows which proclaim “DIRTY!”

And there is a difference between using medical terms pejoratively for an individual, and as a way to describe the character of a policy.

Or should we boycott Simon and Garfunkel for saying “Silence like a cancer grows”, the Who for Quadrophenia and anyone who uses the word “measly” (people with measles)?

Do you know, if the newspapers and blogs are symptomatic of current RETARDED conservative sentiment, I’m half-considering the possibility that the non-Conservatives might actually pull off a slim majority next year, bearing in mind that most people in Britain who didn’t already have a room dedicated to Princess Diana memorabilia either a) don’t really care about Europe and b) thought we were already in Europe anyway.

Go UKIP!

OK Let’s talk about Dan Hannan

What’s there to talk about? Even if Cameron did negotiate a package that he wanted a ‘Yes’ vote on, Hannan will probably smell conspiracies and seven-feet tall federalist lizards with laser-eyes regardless. It’s now very clear he wants an in-or-out referendum (which Cameron, under questioning, has hinted might happen in five years’ time) and he’s now free to lobby for that from the back benches as the shoutiest Tory voice in the room. Or he can join Ukip, if it wasn’t for the narcissism of minor differences between him and Farage.

And there is a difference between using medical terms pejoratively for an individual, and as a way to describe the character of a policy.

That’s a reasonable point. Although Lellouche did accuse the Tories (rather than their policy) of having “a bizarre sense of autism”.

Do you know, if the newspapers and blogs are symptomatic of current RETARDED conservative sentiment, I’m half-considering the possibility that the non-Conservatives might actually pull off a slim majority next year,

You’ve got a great chance of making some money then. You can get 12/1 at Paddy Power on a Labour majority. Tories are at 1/4.

Roger Helm MEP: Our new European policy is confused and essentially cosmetic
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/11/roger-helmer-mep-our-new-european-policy-is-confused-and-essentially-cosmetic-and-i-cannot-defend-it.html

Damn, so many Tory drama queens, so much little time eh Martin? You must have your hands full today telling people on ConHome that they’re all acting like drama queens.

Ah, now I didn’t say Labour majority; I said Conservative minority – what do I get for that?

Electoral calculus is at 66 seat majority, but I’ll wait till the next opinion poll.

Plus, old people don’t generally use the internet, who are the most likely ones to shift their vote to UKIP as a result of this.

@55:

Sunny, no doubt your keen journalistic eye will be startling us with the revelation that Ken Clarke is a Europhile next!

@56:

Most polling done by Yougov and ICM suggests that Europe is so far down people’s lists of priorities that it barely registers in a general election.

“Daniel Hannan MEP has resigned.”

From what exactly?

@59:

He was the ECR spokesman on legal affairs, ISTR.

Anyone for a politician with some principles?

It’s not to his credit that he couldn’t work out he was playing straight into Dave’s hands last night.

“Daniel Hannan MEP has resigned.” From what exactly?

Maybe we deserve the liars, cheats and dissemblers after all.

56 – NOC is at 3/1. And the most reliable polling company of the day seems to be ICM, rather than YouGov. Although ICM have also been recording the largest Tory leads – 17% rather than 13%.

As far as the electoral impact of the European policy is concerned, I’d have thought that Cameron’s announcement would have minimised it rather than anything else. Even Sunny is reduced to pointing at Roger Helmer (ffs) as evidence of the extreme ideological splits in the Conservative Party.

@54

“That’s a reasonable point. Although Lellouche did accuse the Tories (rather than their policy) of having “a bizarre sense of autism”.”

The problem here is that quote is taken out of context – it was not necessarily perjorative, but a description of how he perceives the behaviour of Hague et al, which he claimed consists mainly of repeating the same talking points over and over* rather than giving substantive answers to questions on the subject of Tory EU policies.

The Atlantic Bridge lot scare me though – they’re not only slavishly devoted to the US, but to the neocon/Friedmanite businessmen and politicians in the US who were recently turfed out of power as a result of completely screwing up the country and making themselves filthy rich at the expense of most of the populace in the process.

* – condensed version – “I will *die* for our miserable, shitty existence!”…

63 – I think it’s a stretch to find an explanation for it that isn’t perjorative to be honest. It’s also a tad hypocritical from a country whose European policy at one point was just not to turn up, thereby making it impossible for anyone to do anything.

Hey, pagar – you missed this bit:

It’s now very clear he wants an in-or-out referendum (which Cameron, under questioning, has hinted might happen in five years’ time) and he’s now free to lobby for that from the back benches as the shoutiest Tory voice in the room.

I can recognise Hannan’s sense of principle (from his own perspective) – it still doesn’t mean he’s right

@64

I think it’s pertty much impossible for the French language to seem anything other than blunt when translated – it’s one of the more refreshing things about it. And by its very nature the EU these days is a very different beast from what it was even ten years ago, let alone the days when Mitterand and Kohl basically ran the whole shebang while Maggie ran across the pond to snuggle with war criminal Ronald Reagan.

66 – you mean Wehrmacht Kohl and Vichy Mitterrand? At least the Americans were on our side…

(if we’re going to indulge in pointless and puerile finger-pointing)

I can recognise Hannan’s sense of principle (from his own perspective) – it still doesn’t mean he’s right

Hey pesto.

In truth, I am not really bothered whether he is right or not.

In the current Sodom and Gomorrah that is the political scene in the UK, it is refreshing to find someone who expresses views that he actually believes in and is prepared to sacrifice personal advancement by having some principles that he will stand by.

Try to name some more.

Tony Benn, Frank Field, David Davies…..I’m starting to struggle.

@67

“Wehrmacht Kohl and Vichy Mitterrand”, eh?

I see your true colours, shining through… [/cyndilauper]

And if by “on our side” you mean being their early warning listening post for ICBMs, and allowing us to sportingly be nuked to glass a few more minutes before them for the privilege, then you have a very different definition of the term than I do!

tory troll “(if we’re going to indulge in pointless and puerile finger-pointing)”

But that is all you trolls do.

Cameron is just following in the footsteps of all the Tories who have gone on and on about Europe and then done nothing.

The Tories have never let the British people have a say on Europe. They took us into Europe, they pushed through the European single act on a friday afternoon when most Mps had gone home, and then Major had to use a vote of confidence to get through his little bit of European legislation.

The truth about Europe is the giant global corporations want us in Europe which is why we stay. The moment they want us out, we will be out.

@70

But it has its positive side-effects too, which is hopefully to foster co-operation with our neighbours and hopefully put the snide WWII triumphalism that still plagues us behind us for good.

Oh, and to prevent us from becoming the 51st state of course.

[47] How you work that out from what I wrote, Charlie2, I’ve no idea.

@72

And it *always* seems to come back to WWII with the ’sceptics and ‘phobes – which, by the by, started a gnat’s chuff over seventy bloody years ago! Surely it’s time to stop letting that period colour our views of the Continent.

Oh, and by any objective measure, we lost that conflict almost as badly as Germany and France did – the only winners were the US and USSR, and that latter came at an unimaginable human price.

72. Mike Killingworth. “Europhobia is simply the middle-class variant of racism”

Your statement seems to imply that if someone is europhobic and middle class, they are racist.

[74] Of course someone can fight for their country and be a racist at the same time. I refer you to Sam Johnson’s famous definition of patriotism.

“Plus, old people don’t generally use the internet, who are the most likely ones to shift their vote to UKIP as a result of this.”

They’ll be dead by the next election.

“And it *always* seems to come back to WWII with the ’sceptics and ‘phobes – which, by the by, started a gnat’s chuff over seventy bloody years ago! Surely it’s time to stop letting that period colour our views of the Continent.”

No it doesn’t *always” come back to WWII – only with the UKIP crowd, many of whom are an embarrassment to the Eurosceptic movement. I’m still waiting for Europhiles to explain how we benefit from the CAP, CFP, common external tariff and the fact that our social and employment laws are governed by Brussels rather than Westminster.

One could make a respectable argument for certain technical regulations relating to the standard of goods being made on an EU level but I don’t see why Westminster can’t decide on matters such as the social chapter orworking time directive (which I suspect we will soon be asked to adopt again) or why we should be forced to put trade barriers up against countries outside the EU.

“He was the ECR spokesman on legal affairs,”

I must admit I’d been entirely unaware hitherto that he held this position.

Perhaps it’s just me.

I don’t know but politically this is a smooth move by cameron. He timed his speech to perfection in terms of media news cycle. And the message would resonate with a lot of voters especially the British Sovereign Laws.

Further, why is the left jumping up and down about this? Or the liberals?

When the lisbon treaty was making its way through the Houses Of Parliament, the Liberals did not support the motion for a referendum, which was made by the Tories. Then both the labour and the lib dems were looking for the commas and full stops to differentiate between the EU Constitution and this so called Lisbon Treaty.

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck – it is a duck but no its not the constitution. And Labour and Liberals questioning Cameron’s integrity. And I am no Tory. That’s just hypocritical.

I see your true colours, shining through

Not at all. I was just responding to your childish and inaccurate description of Reagan as a war criminal with a childish and accurate description of Kohl and Mitterrand (unless you can prove otherwise). That’s why I described it as pointless and puerile, making the point that two can play at that game.

The idea that someone being sceptical about the idea of harmonisation between two extremely different political and legal systems is racist is, of course, too ridiculous to be worth countering.

@79

I know we’re off-topic here, but regarding Reagan, did he not specifically break the law of the country he was supposed to be running by authorising covert weapons trading with Iran to shore up right-wing thugs in Nicaragua, undoubtedly contributing to thousands more deaths than there otherwise might have been?

I’d have had a centre-left government working hand-in-hand with Mitterand and Kohl in the ’80s over being run by a right-wing ideologue cosying up to another right-wing ideologue for the best part of a decade, is all I’m saying.

Everything that’s wrong with the West today is directly traceable back to the Reagan/Thatcher years.

Everything that’s wrong with the West today is directly traceable back to the Reagan/Thatcher years.

I think I’ll just say that I disagree with this analysis, and leave it at that. A discussion that starts from this premise is unlikely to generate much light.

@82

Of course not, you support their policies and are actively agitating for their return (despite the fact we’ve never truly lost them, in the UK at least). You care not for the people who will be hurt by this, because you believe in the myth of people “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps” – which, to stretch an analogy, is kind of difficult when the people you’re talking about can’t afford boots because the industries that sustained them for nearly a century were destroyed by the big sell-off of the 1980s to make way for the current obsession with consumerism and managerialism. Thatcher’s biggest conceit was that she could wish away an entire social class.

@81 rather… what’s going on with the comment numbering at the moment?

Is permanent political union with the European Council of Ministers a good thing for us?

Are we better ruled by non-elected bodies overseas than those we elect ourselves?

Does a trade group require a president, a parliament and a foreign minister?

How do we vote this ruling authority out if we disagree with their policies?

Will we be given a referendum on the name of our province when the stated aim of the European Union to ultimately unite as a single country is acheived?

Just asking.