That's better -- something more than 1-liners.

If so many UK political leaders have got away with so much lying perhaps we need somebody else to keep an eye on them. Like the EU? That's a good idea. The EU is world-renowned as a model of corruption probity, so their overlordship of UK politicians, as proposed in Giscard's new constitution, would fill everyone with new confidence and give a real filip to UK public life. Or not.

McGrath: England is not "in", but Britain is.

An Pluiméir Ceolmhar: your discounting tabloid opinions is akin to my discounting all your opinions because you're Irish (I assume -- if you're Chinese, please forgive me). You have to address the issues! Just because the Sun says the world is round doesn't mean that it's flat. Equally, unless you can show errors in their opinions or arguments, that many of the UK nationals are not owned by Britons is irrelevant. Once again, you have to address the issues!

The Tories are not necessarily inconsistent in once having abjured referendums but now calling for one. This government has changed the rules by happily having referendums on things from devolution (although, oddly enough, they didn't ask me my opinion on the United Kingdom being broken up), through to whether mayors were a good thing, and they've promised a referendum on joining the euro. It could be that the Tories are merely adjusting their game to this new playing field. On the other hand, given that referendums are now bandied about so freely, the Tories, like me, are possibly only in favour of this referendum because they don't believe the British people (sorry -- I begin to sound like the Daily Mail) would be so cretinous as to vote for Giscard's constitution. However, I believe that the cards are so stacked that if one EU-member does not ratify it, it falls; given that several nations have promised their citizens referendums and others might yet allow them, I think it quite probable that at least one will fail to ratify it. But it doesn't do to be complacent.

If you think the "democratic deficit" is over-stated, I disagree. The third member of the EU's triumvirate, which you don't mention, is the Commission. Commissioners are not elected, they are appointed. The Commission initiates legislation which it passes to the Council and the Parliament for rubber-stamping. What's democratic about that? The democratically-elected Parliament cannot even initiate legislation! Also, the Commission seems to be the seat of much of the corruption I so excoriate. In 1999 all Commissioners were forced to resign, along with their President, Jaques Santer, because the extent of their venality became apparent. The current Commission is currently embroiled in corruption audits. Neil Kinnock, anti-corruption supremo, is out of his depth, and favours sacking whistle-blowers rather than investigating their claims. This is the Neil Kinnock that the British electorate considered inferior to John Major (imagine it!) in 1992. As to the House of Lords: in this context it is irrelevant (insert your own jokes here): I don't base my arguments against a federal EU on a claim that Britain's institutions are perfect.