Proportional misrepresentation

We have today been treated to the most blatant challenge yet to Gordon Brown's leadership of the Labour Party. One of the few members of his Cabinet capable of stringing together a sentence without using jargon has called for a referendum on our voting system. Writing in The Times, Alan Johnson called today for the next general election to be accompanied by a referendum in which we would be given the choice of retaining the present first-past-the-post system and something called "alternative vote plus". In doing so he knows there is virtually no chance of it happening, but that is not what troubles me.

A referendum is a serious thing. In my lifetime there has only been one for voters in England and the same one is the only one in history for voters throughout the whole United Kingdom. It was held in June 1975 and concerned our membership of the European Economic Community. The referendum was held as a direct result of a general election manifesto commitment by Harold Wilson's Labour Party to hold a referendum on continued UK membership of the EEC once his best efforts to re-negotiate the terms of our membership of the EEC were known. The general election was held in February 1974 and the re-negotiation took almost a year (another general election occurred in this time, in October 1974). By mid March 1975 a new deal had been reached and the following month Parliament voted for a referendum.

Membership of the EEC was a very hot topic at the time. It split both main parties then as membership of the EU (an entity those arguing for continued membership of the EEC in 1975 said was never a prospect) does now. Politicians of both parties expressed their views freely and it was one of the most widespread topics of debate. The referendum was held not just because of the February 1974 manifesto promise but also because the issue was a festering sore, a big red boil that needed lancing. One way or another an answer had to be provided so that the country could move on from an argument that threatened to engulf every aspect of political debate.

Today, completely out of the blue, we find a cabinet member arguing for a referendum on something that was nothing more than an aspiration in general election manifestos. The Labour Manifesto of 1997 included these two sentences tucked in the middle "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."

The "independent commission" was headed by former Labour Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Roy Jenkins. Labour's Manifesto for the 2001 election watered down the position put forward in 1997. After mentioning that the new devolved authorities for Scotland and Wales, the London Assembly and European Parliament elections had different electoral systems they said: "We will review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins Report to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster."

Showing no evidence that they had undertaken the promised review, their Manifesto for 2005 abandoned any proposal for altering the voting system to the House of Commons saying: "Labour remains committed to reviewing the experience of the new electoral systems - introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster."

This is hardly the necessary background for holding only the second national referendum in history. The issue wasn't on the national radar in 1997 when it was a firm manifesto commitment, since then it has even been dropped in importance by the Liberal Democrats who have argued for proportional representation for decades. So, why is it now important? The simple answer is that it is just as important or unimportant as it ever was. What it is not, however, is something to be sprung on us with no more than a year to the next election. The Jenkins report might have recommended "alternative vote plus" and I might have heard or read about it at the time, but it rings no bells in my drink-sodden mind.

I am no fan of proportional representation systems because I believe it is healthier for one party to be able to do its worst and be shot down than to have a series of compromise solutions that satisfy no one. That, however, is not my objection to Mr Johnson's proposal. Mr objection is that the issue is far more complex than choosing between the current system and a proposal Mr Johnson's government has abandoned. If the current voting system is to be challenged through a referendum it should only be after full debate about all the options. I find it fundamentally objectionable that an idea should be brought out of mothballs and presented as not only the solution to current ills but the only possible solution. And why is it said to be the solution? Because of a plea to authority. An "independent commission" considered the matter and we should bow down and accept their wisdom. A wisdom which, as far as I am aware, has not been adopted in any other country. No, it doesn't work like that.

The issue needs mature consideration, not a knee-jerk reaction.

The upside-down Archbishop

One of the greatest challenges for those interested in politics is to decide where to draw the line between political and personal criticism. As a general rule, the higher someone climbs up the greasy pole of political power the more open he or she is to personal attack. Jeremy Clarkson famously described our current so-called Prime Minister a "one-eyed Scottish idiot", I suspect he would not have described Gordon Brown in that way were he a junior minister. As a matter of inescapable fact he would still have been a one-eyed Scottish idiot, but he would not have been in the firing line for that sort of personal attack.

High rank puts one in the firing line for personal attacks whether or not they are fair or accurate. It's part of the territory - set yourself up above the little people and the little people expect a lot of you. In real life it is necessary for some to be above the little people. Like it or loath it, we need government and that means we need government ministers, and that means we need a hierarchy of government ministers, and that means there is someone at the very top of the pyramid. The higher you climb the more we little people will expect of you and, it has to be said, the more you will profit when your time in office has ended.

Let's go down a few ranks to workaday MPs. They don't have the glory of wielding real power but they are the Parliamentary representatives of all their constituents, on average something like 80,000 people. Of that 80,000, on average something like 78,500 will earn less than an MP's salary. Only a very few of those that earn more than their MP will not be under any pressure to justify their income. Maybe they are authors or musicians raking in royalties, or the sons and daughters of wealthy people living on the produce of historic family investments. Such people are few and far between. The other high earners are in business and answerable to customers and/or shareholders every day of the year. MPs' customers are their constituents, the vast majority of whom struggle to balance the family books from one month to the next. News that our MP has been paid by us for a personal rather than a work expense might receive a "tut, tut" when times are good, but in a recession it receives a "how dare you?"

The single reason we criticise our MPs for using loopholes and manipulating the rules as we might in our lives (if only we could) is that they are above us. They are above us constitutionally and practically, so we have every right to expect them to behave at least as ethically as they tell us to behave. That we might have turned a blind eye for years is neither here nor there, when circumstances change so does the way we all look at things. In particular something we would not have been too concerned about at one time can become a matter of fundamental importance which must be changed. There is no once and for all, right-or-wrong assessment of the matter. In relation to MPs' expenses/allowances it cannot rationally be said that the widespread criticisms being made of MPs now lack merit because they were not made before, nor can it rationally be said that we were wrong not to raise these criticisms earlier. It is all a matter of context. For example, adultery by senior politicians was far more of an issue after John Major launched his "back to basics" campaign than it was before because the government was openly promoting fidelity. Similarly, hearing politicians from all sides tell us to tighten our belts because of recession makes their financial waistlines fair game for comment.

Only time can determine when the criticisms have run their course. It's not like a guillotined debate in the House of Commons in which a vote is forced after a certain time whether everyone with a desire to speak has had their turn, these criticisms will be made by real people for as long as they feel there is a need to make them. Any MP who resigns or announces they will not seek reelection might find they drop off the comment radar, any who do not answer criticism satisfactorily will find they are just delaying the inevitable. In an article in yesterday's Times newspaper the Archbishop of Canterbury said "the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy." I could not disagree with him more.

What is happening now is an essential part of a mature democracy. You do not damage a system based on the notion of representation of the people by forcing the main representational institution to meet the standards required of it by the people. No damage is being done to confidence in our democracy, only to confidence in the way Parliament is behaving. The answer is to force it to change, and that is happening. It is happening because, not despite, "continuing systematic humiliation of politicians".

Confidence in democracy is a deeply ingrained cultural force in Britain. Democracy is often described as the least bad system of government but it is much more than that. It is something that helps to hold the country together. We all know that our personal, individual power to change the law or influence government policy is so small as to be virtually nil, we also know that both the law and policy can be altered where the public mood (expressed in countless different ways) is so strong that government and Parliament have to accede to that mood. In recent times we have seen significant changes of policy on petrol taxes, the 10p income tax rate and, most recently, rights of settlement for Gurkhas; all of them brought about by public pressure and criticism. This has not damaged our democracy, it has enhanced it by showing that it works.

The only way our democracy can be damaged is by damaging the ability of the little people to influence the big people. If it takes the humiliation of dozens of big people in order to ensure that influence remains in place, so be it.

Getting around the smoking ban, or not

The landlady of a pub in Yorkshire tried to evade the smoking ban by nominating a room in her pub as a research facility. As I understand it she placed questionnaires about smoking in the room in the hope that that would make it a research facility and allowed patrons to smoke provided they completed a form. The owners of the pub put a stop to it (here). Donning my curly horsehair wig I want to explain why I think they were right to do so. It really pains me to write this.

The smoking ban operates by defining certain types of premises as "smoke-free". If your premises fall within the description it is an offence to smoke there and to allow smoking there. The general rule is that work premises are "smoke-free", although exceptions may be made. The power to make exceptions is contained in section 3 of the Health Act 2006. Exceptions may be made by providing that "specified descriptions of premises" are not "smoke-free". In other words, where premises of a certain description are identified as being not "smoke-free" people may smoke there without it being a criminal offence and those in charge of the premises will not commit a crime by permitting smoking. One of the descriptions is "A designated room in a research or testing facility". The landlady of the pub in Yorshire tried to get into this description.

There is a specific provision in sub-section 3 of section 3 aimed at restaurants, pubs and clubs with a licence to sell booze. When exempt premises are being described, the description may not include the fact that it is licensed to sell booze. In other words, there may be no exemptions for restaurants, pubs and clubs by reason of them being restaurants, pubs or clubs. That does not necessarily mean that a room within a restaurant, pub or club cannot be exempt under any circumstances, but it cannot be exempted by reason of it being part of licensed premises, although it might be exempt despite being part of licensed premises.

This sub-section is important because it emphasises that the ban is intended to apply to all licensed premises. That does not mean that licensed premises, or a room in licensed premises, cannot be exempt but it sets the scene. Any attempt to circumvent the smoking ban in restaurants, pubs and clubs must be genuine and not just a ruse.

The exemption relied upon in the case under discussion is that relating to "research and testing facilities". It is created by Clause 9 of The Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007. Clause 9 paragraph (1) says "A designated room in a research or testing facility is not smoke free while it is being used for any research or tests specified in paragraph (2)". This makes clear that the premises must be a research or testing facility and the designated room must be part of that facility. No doubt there could be a research or testing facility comprising a single room that is not part of a larger unit, but apart from that situation the "specified description of premises" requires the premises to be fairly described as a "research or testing facility". A pub is not a research or testing facility except in the loose sense of it being somewhere people can research and test their liking for and hepatic tolerance of alcoholic beverages. Although people do in fact research and test their liking for and hepatic tolerance of booze in pubs, pubs are not "research and testing facilities" in any real sense. A room in a pub is, therefore, not part of a research and testing facility, it is part of a pub.

The only way a room in a pub can be a "research and testing facility" is if it ceases to be just a room in a pub and becomes a stand-alone "research and testing facility". I have no doubt that this could happen, although it would be a rather strange arrangement. For example, a scientist might need to set-up a laboratory and might hire a room in a pub for that purpose. In that situation the room is essentially separate from the pub, it ceases to be a room in a pub and has its own identity as a research and testing facility. In that situation the room would cease to be part of the pub and would have a status of its own. That is different in substance from a room in a pub being used for some sort of research whilst retaining its essential character as a room in a pub. Say a room is used for a wine tasting evening, that might fairly be described as an exercise in research and testing, yet in substance it is still a room in a pub rather than a research and testing facility.

I don't intend to get bogged-down in analysing the type of research and testing that allows smoking to take place in premises that would otherwise have to be "smoke-free". The details are in paragraph (2) of Clause 9, to which I have provided a link. What is not stated in terms in that paragraph, but is implicit in each of its sub-paragraphs, is that smoking must be part of the research. Just because a laboratory tests the reaction of a piece of cloth to a smouldering cigarette does not allow those working in the lab to get through twenty Benson & Hedges while they are awaiting results from their experiment. Similarly, an organisation that invites people into its office to answer questions about their smoking habits does not trigger the exemption and should not expect the completed forms to be covered in cigar ash. A laboratory in which people smoke so that their physiological reactions to ciggies can be measured does not give carte blanche to the examiners to smoke before, during or after the tests. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the clear purpose of both the primary legislation (the Health Act 2006) and the Regulations made under that primary legislation.

As for the room in the pub containing written questionnaires, frankly it's just a ruse. It is research of a sort but it doesn't make the pub a "research and testing facility". Filling in a form does not require smoking to take place while pen is in hand. As always it is necessary to look not at the form of what is happening but at the substance. The substance is that the room is part of the pub, nothing more, as such it is covered by the smoking ban. Were it a genuine "research and testing facility" the landlady would soon find a condition imposed on her licence preventing her from selling or supplying booze to those using the room and she could have no complaint about that.

Nice try, madam, better luck next time.

"Howzatt?" Guilty as charged.

Today a former England cricketer was sentenced to 13 years in chokey for smuggling cocaine. Chris Lewis was an excellent player when he tried, sadly he didn't try often enough and his career was littered with lost opportunities. From the little I have read about it, his venture into drug smuggling was equally half-baked. He and a friend imported liquid cocaine in containers labelled as fruit juice. Most comical of all was the pair's decision to blame each other - the classic "cut-throat" defence.

Smuggling drugs is fraught with difficulties. Actually, I'm not in a position to say how difficult the smuggling itself is but I can say something about the difficulties faced if caught. You see, there's no such thing as a good defence. The tin of pineapple chunks in your luggage turns out to be full of cocaine, what can you say that might possibly make sense?

"My mum likes pineapple chunks so I bought them as a present." OK, so how did it happen that the tin of innocent fruit turned into thousands of pounds worth of Colombia's finest? How did it get onto the shelves of the QuickyMart in the first place? And how very lucky that it was intercepted by HM Revenue & Customs before dear old Ma wolfed it down a drop of Carnation milk.

Or you could try this one: "I never knew it was there, it must have been planted in my luggage by an unknown stranger." Bit tricky that, how do you explain that you didn't notice it? Say it wasn't in your luggage but you came over by car and it was found under the spare tyre in the boot. Then you have to explain how the intended recipient was going to recover it from you. If you have no connection to the importation chain this might prove a little impractical.

And then there is the defence run by Mr Lewis and his chum: "My friend gave it to me to bring over for him because he feared his luggage would be overweight." In this case each said it of the other. Now you know the real reason we are asked that seemingly daft question at airports: "has anyone given you anything to carry?" It isn't so that we will say "yes", it's so we will say "no"; then when we are caught and say we were just carrying the pineapple chunks for a heavily laden friend we find we shot ourselves in the foot at the start of the journey. Of course when travelling with a friend you might find that one of you is over the baggage weight allowance and the other is under so spreading the load makes sense, but only a moron takes a container of anything, sensible people relieve their friend of clothes or stolen hotel towels.

A necessary part of the defence is that you didn't know the stuff was cocaine. This aspect of it tends to stand or fall alongside the inanity of your excuse for carrying the package in the first place. Once a jury dismisses your story about how the stuff came into your possession it follows almost as night follows day that they won't believe anything else you tell them.

Following that theme, I now arrive at the "cut-throat" defence - where the two defendants blame each other. Amateur criminals rather like the cut-throat defence. They talk about it while awaiting trial and conclude that by blaming each other they will both get off because the jury won't be able to decide which is guilty. Or they fall out before the trial and blame each other out of spite. Either way it is an almost guaranteed route to conviction because it appears cowardly and unrealistic. Professional criminals rarely use the cut-throat. Where the evidence is very strong against one and a bit weaker against the other they prefer to sacrifice the one who is going to be potted anyway (in the general run of things his guilty plea earns a reduced sentence). He then gives evidence against the other and enhances his friend's chance of acquittal by making mistakes in his evidence thereby creating a hole in the prosecution case that was not previously present.

Mr Lewis and his friend played it all wrong and will have seven or so years to think of a better defence if ever they are tempted again. They didn't keep their eye on the ball.

Speaking of incompetence ...

It was painful watching the Speaker floundering yesterday as his failure to grasp the nettle and show leadership resulted in the very public loss of personal authority over and, indeed, actual control of proceedings in the House of Commons. In just a few minutes last week he made yesterday's humiliation inevitable as he tried to shout down his critics rather than looking them in the face and answering their comments.

For the benefit of my reader overseas I should explain. As you have probably heard our MPs have been caught twisting the rules to award themselves additional income by getting the taxpayer to cover some of their ordinary living expenses. It's caused a huge stink and the Speaker, a rather thick man by the name of Michael Martin, is the person with responsibility for sorting it out. His first move was not to arrange for these claims to be reviewed and paid back but to call in the police to investigate how details were leaked. Last week one MP sought to question his decision to involve the police. The Speaker had two legitimate courses of action open to him, he could have stood by his decision and explained it or he could have admitted that he was wrong and announced that he would be inviting the police to cease their enquiries. Instead he interrupted his challenger, prevented her finishing her question and used extraordinary language to tell her, in effect, to shut up and mind her own business. Another member tried to raise the same issue and was also rebuffed rudely and disrespectfully. Unfortunately Mr Martin picked on two moderate and polite MPs thereby showing himself not just to be intemperate and rude but to be a bully as well.

Many have questioned his suitability as Speaker ever since he was appointed, in the space of just a couple of minutes everything became clear even to his supporters. Here is a man out of his personal and intellectual depth. Parliamentary chickens began to come home to roost. Yesterday he decided to make an address about the whole scandal of MPs' rampant profiteering and offered a limp apology by way of reading a short written statement over which he stumbled on a number of occasions. There was no plan to deal with the problem merely the announcement of a meeting with leaders of the various political parties. It simply didn't get anywhere near addressing the problem, it showed no leadership or initiative and gave no hope that he was capable of resolving a problem that had become a national scandal.

Following his address he was asked what was happening about a motion of no confidence in him which had recently been tabled but not yet scheduled for debate. And that is when his last shred of authority disappeared as he was unable to explain the applicable procedure. It was apparent that he had totally lost control of proceedings as members barracked him in a way not seen in living memory. Today he opened the day's proceedings with a personal statement lasting barely half a minute in which he announced that he will resign as Speaker on the 21st of June.

These events were a fine example of what personal authority entails. One might expect a Speaker of the House of Commons to be an expert in Parliamentary procedure, to have a quick mind that allows him or her to respond to points of order without disrupting debate unduly, to possess a ready wit with which to diffuse tension, to have an air of authority and to be able to represent our Parliament overseas and to visitors from overseas through intellect and charm. Mr Martin has none of these qualities. Most obviously lacking is the air of authority without which it is impossible to be an effective chair of a debate.

Personal authority is such a difficult thing to define yet nothing can be easier to recognise in real life. It is that aura that makes us automatically listen to someone and to be prepared to accept what he says, we see it in captains of sports teams and at our places of work, some people are natural leaders and others are not. Tony Blair is whereas Gordon Brown is not, indeed he is the only Prime Minister in my lifetime to lack that capacity. I think the quality is one of self-assurance as much as anything else, but it is not only self-assurance. It carries with it an invitation to follow the leader rather than a challenge to do so. It is "this is what I think and I hope you will agree" rather than "this is what I think and you must accept it". The first causes any debate to start from a presumption that the leader is correct whereas the second encourages discord and conflict.

The central lesson to be learned from Mr Martin's disastrous reign as Speaker is that picking the wrong person cannot easily be rectified. He became Speaker in October 2000 yet it took until May 2009 for the cumulative detriment of his incompetence to be so overwhelming that he had to go. In the meantime the government has steamrollered badly drafted and ill-considered legislation through Parliament with little, if any, debate and detailed policy initiatives are now launched through leaks to newspapers and speeches to special interest groups. A competent Speaker would not have allowed this to develop as it has. The recent furore over MPs' expenses was the last in a long line of issues on which Mr Martin's lack of leadership led to conventions of honourable behaviour being weakened and then abrogated entirely because there was no one to uphold them. It's all very well saying MPs and ministers should behave honourably but not all will, some try to push the boundary. That is where qualities of leadership are required in a Speaker so that he can ensure proper standards are maintained. It helps to set the whole atmosphere by which the business of the legislature is conducted and acts as a check on any governmental desire to rule by diktat rather than by reason.

So now we have reached a point at which both Parliament and the government are drifting from one crisis to another, neither is being led or managed with any degree of competence. It will take a lot more than a new Speaker to put things right, but it does need a new Speaker, one who can pick the whole thing up by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake. That won't make the government any more competent, nothing can do that because they simply don't have able people waiting to replace the dross currently filling the cabinet. What it can achieve, however, is the reintroduction of a proper system of law making so that any further damage done in the final year of this rotten Parliament is kept to a minimum.

The trouble with booze

For as long as I can remember I have drunk quite unfeasibly large quantities of booze. Wine is measured in bottles not glasses, cider in litres not pints and as for gin you can forget laughable pub measures - slosh the stuff in. Days without drink have become more regular in recent times whereas in the past there have been many years without a single dry day. Increased cost hasn't put me off, I just cut back on something else and bogus health scares about numbers of "units" of alcohol consumed and the danger of "binge drinking" are dismissed as pointless sermons from Puritan hypocrites. I drink a lot because I want to, no other reason. My liver is pretty much wrecked now and the battle to keep my blood pressure within measurable limits requires heavy medication. But it has been my conscious choice to lose a few years at the end in order to enjoy the ones I experience.

Over the last twelve months I have experimented with dry days. It's awfully hard work and strangely satisfying in a self-flagellating sort of way, as well as providing a much needed boost for manufacturers of high-juice orange squash. The last couple of weeks have been quite bizarre. Perhaps I have misbehaved in some way and require punishment, although I can't think of any particularly sinful activity that merits reproach, nonetheless six of the fourteen days have been dry including two in succession this time last week. Yesterday was a dry day and resulted in absolute proof that I must drink for the sake of my sanity because last night I dreamt of Gordon Brown.

So dire had public finances become that Gordon decided to convert 10 Downing Street into flats and I bought the basement flat (called the Garden Flat because that's what estate agents do). He stayed on at ground floor level and we had shared use of the garden. One sunny afternoon I was up a ladder cleaning a muddy gutter with my bare hands when the Prime Minister descended the rear stairs carrying a portable piano which he set up on my patio and then donned a flowery dress and proceeded to perform as Mrs Mills. It was all good sing-along stuff and he was at his very campest, even more so than in his recent disastrous YouTube broadcast on MPs' expenses.

What did it mean? I'm no expert on interpreting dreams but if truth be told I'm sure no one can be an expert because there is no way of proving one theory over another. Was it, perhaps, just a hope that Gordon will resign and turn to work more suited to his personal tastes? Did it reflect a previously unknown fetish for fat women with stubble? Was I displaying my desire to be Prime Minister and to not be scared of getting my hands dirty in the task of rescuing the country? There was an additional, and deeply worrying, matter. At one stage Gordon launched into a medley of George Formby songs and sang in a style more reminiscent of Rab C Nesbitt.

Actually, it's quite clear what it means. It means I should not upset my natural equilibrium by the irrationality of temporary teetotalism. I'll drink to that.

Euro-elections and MPs' expenses

We are now just a couple of weeks away from the elections to the European Parliament and little is being heard about it above the noise of the expenses scandal. I have tried casting my mind back to the last lot of Euro elections to see whether I can remember there being much excitement then, sadly, memory is there none. Why, I wonder, can't I remember? I remember general election campaigns and even some aspects of local election campaigns, but nothing about Euro elections.

I think it's probably a consequence of what Euro elections are. Voting for an MP or local councillor means voting for someone with a direct part to play in the implementation of policy and the making of law (Acts of Parliament in the case of an MP and by-laws in the case of a councillor). The number of MPs/councillors elected for each party determines the form of the national or local government that rules over us. For all the deficiencies and quirks in the first-part-the-post constituency system and, indeed, in the amount of power political parties have over elected representatives, at least the outcome of the election decides who governs and sets the strength of their nominal majority in the chamber. Returning an MEP to Brussels has no discernible effect on policy or on the structure, form or political balance of the ruling EU elite.

So what can we vote for in the Euro elections? What issues are there? It seems to me there is really only one issue and our votes are just a glorified opinion poll on that issue - do we want to stay in or do we want to get out? The policy of all three main parties is to stay in the EU. They don't campaign by promising they will actually achieve anything if elected because they know they can't; they angle for support because votes in any election strengthen their overall domestic position.

An interesting side-issue arising from the MPs' expenses fiasco is that it shows how public opinion can bring about change regardless of the voting strength of the parties in the House of Commons. Fiddles of a few hundred pounds here and there have raised a stink just as much as profiteering by tens of thousands on sale of a house paid for by the taxpayer. Neither the government nor the opposition parties can ignore the fuss because it is engulfing the whole country, there is simply no buffer between them and us, no insulation to allow them to carry on as they wish. By contrast far greater corruption goes on within the EU institutions. MEPs can and do draw many thousands in perks, allowances and so-called expenses. Commissioners receive substantial salaries and simply enormous fringe-benefits including pensions so sweet they would make real people cry. When exposed to howls of derision among the little people over the failure of the EU's accounts to pass audit and the lack of controls over MEPs troughing, nothing changes. Nothing changes because change can only come from the self-appointed EU elite who are not subject to any direct pressure from the serfs. They serve their time, pick up their massive salaries and are replaced by their friends. Neither the ballot box nor public opinion has any influence at all.

The row over MPs' expenses shows a strength of our democratic system. When something is sufficiently repugnant to normal standards of fair play there are avenues through which it can be addressed. Those avenues are not restricted to the ballot box. Genuine disquiet can cause a major change in Parliamentary procedures or in government policy whatever the result of the most recent general election. The effect of public opinion does not operate outside the democratic system, it is part of it. Indeed it is more accurate to say that elections are just one way in which public opinion influences the way we are governed.

Public opinion is irrelevant to the workings of the EU institutions. It is irrelevant because there is no mechanism for it to operate on those workings and, more significantly, it is irrelevant because the institutions exist not by the will of the people but by the will of a self-perpetuating political elite. It is an elite that has devised a system to give it powers wholly removed from the democratic process. If we ever want an example of the importance of retaining a direct link between the will of the little people and the activities of a ruling elite, the expenses row is it. Manipulation of expenses rules to the personal benefit of MPs existed because it could. The corrupt ones, supported at every turn by the hopelessly incompetent trougher-in-chief known as the Speaker, fought tooth and nail to keep their practices secret but eventually the truth came out and now they have to face the consequences. For many of them those consequences will be dire, so be it, that's the price you pay for cheating. Yet that price can only be exacted for so long as there are both means of exposing corrupt practices and the will to combat those practices. The latter is wholly lacking in the EU institutions.

In or out? That's an easy question for me. Contrived arguments about the EU having kept the peace in Europe can be stuck where the attendance allowance doesn't shine, not only are they factually unsustainable but they are also now irrelevant. Dissolve the whole EU today and there won't be war or any threat of war between France and Germany - forget Italy, Spain and the rest, the only fear of serious western European war in the last century has involved those two countries. Contrived arguments that a free market, or anything approaching a free market, between European nations requires centralised political control are patently absurd. Both the EU and the USA have defined free-trade agreements with numerous countries without any need for the blending of governments. Arguments about how much money membership of the EU costs the UK and how much departure from the EU would harm our economy are neither here nor there. Figures given by protagonists on both sides are always selective, hypothetical and/or exaggerated. If we gain, great. If we lose, we lose.

To me it is a matter of self-determination. Only self-determination by nations states can create the circumstances necessary for stable society (I have opined on this point before). Only a direct link between the will of the little people and the power of the ruling class can keep political misbehaviour and corruption to the minimum. That link is impossible on any scale larger than the nation state and, let's be frank, it's difficult enough even in a small country like the UK. Leaving aside any other aspect of the in-out debate, this one is utterly persuasive for me.