I would rather see another 5 years of Brown than wait an entire electoral cycle for a Conservative Prime Minister with the will to resolve this matter.

Reply: Mr Clarke is not going to change the Conservative policy of No to the Euro, No to Lisbon, yes to a referendum and yes to repatriation of powers.

W.B.

And where is the evidence that Cameron will fight the EU, or that he is, even, mildly EUrosceptic? I can't escape the conclusion that Ken Clarke is running him. You ask for someone to stand up and be counted, yes please, bring him on. The three main parties are all in favour of the EU. Yes there are individuals who are not but they seem few and do not shout very loud. The party demands loyalty, I can understand that up to a point, but there are circumstances where that loyalty must be questioned. So, who is going to start?

Reply: Of course David Cameron is not being run by KC. I remember when he was first an MP he invited me to Witney, his constituency, where I set out my views on the EU, and he gave a speech of thanks supporting me. He would not have invited me and encouraged tme to speak about Europe if he was a federalist.

To my surprise, and to Mr Brown's credit, his time as Chancellor did not dismantle the central planks of macro economic policy which did so much to encourage enterprise over the previous eighteen years. We can quibble about certain policies which affected that issue, but it cannot, I think, be said that the overall effect of his policies was to stifle the creation of wealth.

Sadly one cannot say the same for his approach to how wealth should be treated. Tax and spend has always been the Labour mantra and it remains so today.

If one believes that detailed intervention by The State is the only way in which a fair society can be created and maintained, it makes absolute sense to tax high and spend widely. Acceptance that one was in error in believing The State to be the best body to create wealth does not necessitate abandonment of an equally deeply held belief that spending by The State provides benefits which cannot be obtained in any other way.

But having to abandon a major part of the beliefs you held for most of your life and, worse still, having to accept that those whom you have opposed tooth-and-nail for many years were right all along, must weigh very heavily; particularly for someone whose beliefs were not pragmatic but ideological.

Despite his apparent acceptance of free market capitalism as the best means to create wealth, Mr Brown is still a dedicated believer that The State can and should have a huge influence in matters economic. Some would say that he is not a Socialist because he no longer appears to accept that The State should run the means of production. I am happy to accept that, if for no other reason than that the attaching of labels is irrelevant. But his continuing belief in big government is bound to affect his position on many issues.

I have never believed the EU to be a Socialist or Communist conspiracy because I have seen no evidence of any such conspiracy. I am more interested in what it is in practice and what it seeks to be in the future; approaching that investigation with a mind clouded by a desire to find a conspiracy would not allow me to reach a view with which I would be comfortable.

Mr Redwood, you ask "why is the government so afraid of the EU?" One could substitute "Mr Brown" for "the government" because on this, as on every issue, the two seem to be identical. I would suggest that Mr Brown is not afraid of the EU at all. The structures and avowed policies of the EU reflect very closely his present core beliefs in big government.

We must all give Mr Brown fair credit for when he has been right, he has spoken out on many occasions against those in Europe who have hinted at a return to the state as the means of production. That is no longer on the EU agenda and it is due in no small part to his powerful interventions. But, as with the Labour Party so with the EU, micro-management of everything they see in front of them is the desired path. If he fears losing a general election in 2010 it is no surprise that he wishes to hitch the UK wagon to such EU policies, by doing so he will make it all the more difficult for a non-Labour government to change things.

I attribute no ill-motive to his approach, I just happen to believe it to be as misguided as his previous unrestrained attachment to the Michael Foot manifesto.

This highlights an aspect of the whole EU project which I find most troubling.

I doubt that there is a single reader or contributor to this blog who has not changed his or her opinion on an issue when they previously thought their mind was made up forever. None of us knows everything, and only the very scariest people close their minds to the possibility that new ideas, new arguments and new experiences might cause them to change their judgments and opinions.

National governments frequently change their minds when they are proved wrong – it has happened recently over the 10p tax farce and it happened also when Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major were Prime Minister, the ERM farce being one of the best examples. Along came Brian Rix, trousers were dropped, a change was made and we moved on. (Is any reader of this blog young enough to have to Google Brian Rix?)

But where is the mechanism to change the EU's mind? What happens when a one-size-fits-all policy suits 26 member states but causes huge problems for the other 1? What happens when the people of one member state elect a new government which opposes an entrenched EU policy? The more fields the EU governs, the more times such problems are going to arise and the greater will be the democratic deficit.

Mr Brown is not scared of the EU, but I am.

At the moment everyone will recognise Europhobes, people who are largely against the European project (perhaps yourself?); and, Europhiles, people who are largely for the European project (perhaps Kenneth Clarke?).

But there doesn't seem to be any discussion of Eurofags: people who are so sycophantic and unquestioning of the European project that they are damaging said project.

Anyone who pushes for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish referendum should be regarded as a Eurofag. An ignorant wreckers who bring the project into disrepute.

My colours are nailed closer to the Europhile mast than the Europhobe one.

You, Cash, Davis, Heathcote-Amery, Shepherd – please don't give up because English people will not give up, neither will the British.

If the Lisbon Treaty goes ahead, as the EC will ensure it does by various measures, we will be encaptured.

For better or worse, our Parliamentary sovereignty was lost eleven years ago & there is no lawful going back (given the changes to our Constitution by this govt). The only way to end this deceit is through the people themselves. The personage of the Crown seems oblivious to the petitions of her people. Democracy will defeat a totalitarian regime. I just need Cameron to speak louder. If he will not, then the people will speak for themselves.

In the playground, children do not like to be 'outside' the group, so internal politics within the EU has been designed on these ridiculous lines.

Sadly and worrying politicians are attracted more to keeping within the small group at the EU playground rather than being popular with their own people and, thus, unpopular within the EU playground.

Now, with the Cecs saying the Treaty is dead and, like Ireland, being given time to consider their next moves! (as long as it conforms with the majority!) Surely the time has come for David Cameron to be unequivacable and tell the British People that a Conservative Government will hold a referendum on the treaty in the belief that Parliament should have consulted the people on this major issue. If you like agree to the Lib Dem suggestion, simply IN or OUT.

A simple question whereby politicians, business people and all can put the case for IN or for OUT and let the British people decide. What could be more democratic?

Hold the referendum on WATERLOO DAY!

As I understand, the Lisbon Treaty must be ratified by all twenty-seven EU member states in order to be enacted.

Given that Ireland will not be ratifying the Treaty, would it not be the case now that there is absolutely no reason for any other state to continue its own ratification process?

If the Treaty is somehow 'pushed through' regardless, not just the EU, but the entire world will know that Brussels quite simply ignores the rule of law. In that sense, it will be even worse than the old Soviet Union which, loathsome though its policies were, did at least legislate and enact laws–evil though they often were–by which its government abided.

If we have a superstate which quite bluntly refuses to play by its own rules, should not an MP stand up in Parliament and say so? As I recall, an MEP did so in Brussels, though his speech was shouted down….

Reply: The only way to reverse the Brussels ratchet is to vote Conservative in a General Election.