The EU threatens the City unless its new treaty is waived through? That's like giving a mugger your watch to save your wallet then claiming victory for saving the wallet. How do we know the threat to the City wasn't manufactured to give Cameron a "victory" for letting the EU continued as planned, and either way is it in our interests to be in a club where we have to fight for it not to hurt our interests? Bonkers.

Well Danny Alexander just confirmed that Government but send new billions over to IMF *without* a new vote, and s happy for it to go to Greece. We know Osborne was lying, so no shock.

" but we need to be fighting the Labour Party too." Why, except for partisan self-interest? All 3 big parties imposed a 3-line whip against referendum. There are pro-ref and anti-EU MPs in all 3 parties, but none of their parties match that view, and actively suppress that view, so clearly pro-ref, anti-EU supporters should vote for UKIP.

Greed. #OccupyUnison

Spot on Ruth. "why should they suddenly look kindly upon the UK in terms of trade now that we are in financial difficulties?" Because they can see the long-term benefit? Elaine, we're not stuck in 1973. Things have moved on, clearly shown by the cooperation and ease of negotiation over the Royal succession law change.

Well the obvious political class answer to this would be "positive discrimination" quotas, so that x% of all adoptions must be black etc. Of course it will make matters worse, but would result in some nice but meaningless stats to quote in Parliament.

Not at all. Party income is then controlled by an equation, Total votes x £ per vote, where the parties control one side of the equation, ie if number of votes fall, they can increase the £ per vote. And of course, if there is a big people fightback and a massive drop in votes ensues, then they will just making voting compulsory. It is of course a massive scam to end any pretence of answerability to the people.

Indeed, Cameron was the first party leader to actually *propose* this crazy idea back in early 2006.

Very well said Jill. The battle lines of political parties (not politicians) versus the people have been clearly drawn. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg stand firmly on the side of the elite, the political parties.

It's at around 400k and rising I believe, several times more than the few voters in marginal seats who decide general elections.

"Is it strictly true that 'People' triggered the referendum debate?" Yes. The physical petition was delivered to Downing Street in September. This was not the e-petition. Verma, The politicians set the trigger. If it is deemed too low, then they should raise it, and we will hit that target too. You can't set the trigger then dismiss it as too low to be meaningful! lol.

Two things: #1 If turning up the "europe" volume will lose the next election, then by the same logic, the last election where the "Europe" volume was at zero and the tories missed an open goal victory, so the low volume must have cost the party victory. #2 *People* not Tory MPs triggered the EU referendum debate and vote that was crushed by the parties, and Ashcroft concludes that those who voted with the people are out of touch! Priceless. The fact is the EU is clearly a major issue at the moment, and no-one trusts political parties to do the right thing.

Non-binding, backbench debate initiated by public demand, with a wrecking amendment by you, and being whipped against by Government. It couldn't be any more heavy-handed or undemocratic. We don't to know any more thanks George.

The bizarre thing is, I am sure many here could pick a sensible Tory MP, who hasn't been caught abusing expenses, who is saying exactly the same if not more than Laws. Shouldn't conhome be promoting an, erm, Conservative MP?

Growth in what? Expenses abuses?

Your spelling would definitely have been better if you had been at grammar school from the start. ;-) Seriously, as Graham said, schools should be free to choose. It's simple really.

"I won't bother on this blog to point out that a referendum now would almost certainly end up with an "in" vote." David Belchamber @ 11:11 Complete nonsense David. It is the fear of the exact opposite that has resulted in the British people being denied their say. If the euphile political class (Lab or Con) seriously thought the 'in' vote would win, the referendum would already have been green-lighted. But good try anyway... ;-)

in the same way we stood up ...the over-mighty EU now. Did I miss something? Tim, did you write that with a straight face?

First of all, save yourself a lot of time and energy and actually ask the people if they want to be members of the EU. If they vote yes, then you will have a mandate for repatriation, if they vote no, you would have saved yourself a lot of bother.

Rich people and businesses will always seek to influence political parties by greasing their palms. It's the way the world works. The real question is, do we need more land freed up to build more houses, and the answer to that is a firm "yes".

"The British people just don't care about Europe." Except for the fact when given a chance to vote on the EU, a small party like UKIP with only 5% nationally suddenly rockets to *second* place beating Labour and the LibDems. Except for the fact that Govt ministers and Miliband's advisor both said that any referendum with the word "Europe" in would end in a 'no' hence the desire to avoid it. I am perfectly happy to have a referendum and lose. That is democracy. "Having a referendum on leaving the EU is not the same as leaving the EU." Of course but I bet the latter will follow the former. You say the odds are stacked against #no2eu, so why fear a referendum? Pro-EU democrats like Tom Harris are supporting a referendum, put pro and anti democrats in the same camp, with the opposition doing anything they can to deny the people a choice.

Because we know he is an EU agent of course Sal ;-)

"This MP has not yet supported the Pledge." http://www.peoplespledge.org/mp/bernard_jenkin

Not once did Bernard suggest putting the question to the people.

"A large majority of the Party and the public would settle for a different form of membership of the EU." Sorry, but that is rubbish. You know the people would vote to leave if given the chance, without the need for any main party or business support. However I am happy to be wrong, so long as you put it to the people in a referendum. But you don't want to take the risk, do you?