Your argument is simplistic at best, and silly at worst. Slavery had ceased to be economic by the time it was abolished - oh and slavery was stamped out by the power of the Royal Navy and not by the EU and all its directives. What I said is patently true, as you well know. For example paternity benefits have now become so numerous that you would have to be insane (if you own a small business) to employ a woman of child bearing age. The costs and disruption caused isn't worth the candle.

The whole subject of employment law etc should be directly under the control of National Parliaments. It should be a matter under the control of voters, not imposed upon the people by some remote and unaccountable suer-national body. It should be a matter for debate and argument.

While on the subject of the European Union it is noticeable that you have failed to address the whole subject of the referendum which was promised by all the parties in 2005. You consistently complain about our broken politics, advocating a written constitution, and yet I have not read much from you demanding that the parties actually honour their pledge given at the time of the last general election.  

I don't accept "all that" Owly/Tom is by it you mean:
"Every time you impose some new 'right' it creates a cost. Those costs have to be paid for by someone - there aint no such thing as a free lunch - and it is the consumer who pays. It is the unemployed who pay because all your good deeds price them out of a job."

This is an argument against the abolition of slavery. Of course everyone (except the very largest slave owners) can benefit from legally regulated high standards that raise demand and the level of life and well being. These are not costs in a zero-sum situation.

If we are that irrelevant to Europe - let's stop wasting money on it then.

And that would have to be the nastiest example of a pseudo intellectual's self-hatred I have read from this man up to date.

'sub-standard velcro' - is that meant to be some kind of joke???

It should still be a matter for national parliaments and for the will or otherwise of the people. 

Consider "They still think Britain matters. It doesn’t. " and what it says about the authors views on the UK, his patriotism, and yes even faith in the UK having a future, deserving a future. Having even a right to exist.

 Consider also how shaped such views, are by history. For most are shaped by the history of the decline of the British Empire, its economy and power in the world.

Yet that was effectively arrested in the 1980s, and culminated in the liberating events of the ERM debacle in the early 1990s. When the UK finaly stood on its own feet, no longer needing its 100 year obsession of the crutch of a currency peg.

And the economy did not collapse, the country did not fall into third world poverty, the supposed necessity of hanging on others coat tails, begging their aid, proved unnecessary, even counter productive.

The circumstances when the UK counted for ever less, looked ever the poorer, ever the declining, reducing, dimishing power. A state where the very foundations of its existance, a faith in its own future, where falling apart. Was a product of the ideas of manged decline, and the inevitability of history.

Are over. In fact ended more than a decade ago. But its only those who've grown up under this periode, free of the shackles of that declining past who will see beyond such out of date obsessions as the EU. A narrow little regional block trying to shut the world out. 

I accept all that. I was responding to your statement that 'social and employment benefits should be a matter for domestic parliaments' - the point I was making is that there's an argument for their being handled at a more international level, even if that argument can be outweighed by a lack of democracy at that level. Regardless, the question is independent of what the right decision on these benefits is, which is what your comments about their costs speak to.

Part of the problem is that when the British people were asked in 1975 for their consent to membership of the EEC we were told one thing, and now we find we have ended up with the exact opposite just as the Eurosecptics at the time said. 

The Lisbon Treaty is the old EU Constitution merely renamed. We all know this, but the political class across Europe have lied and lied and lied. When they have asked our views we have said NO, but in the fantasy that is the EU only the answer they want counts.

I have come to the conclusion that the UK would be much better off to leave the EU and merely negotiate a free trade agreement. Forcing integration will not lead to a peaceful and prosperous Europe, but to poverty and war.  

I am not a UK citizen or resident . Just somebody from the continental side. However , the heavy 'push' towards Lisbon that has been maintained systematically without people's consent makes me a sympathiser to your cause.
Although on the Continent people are talking less about abandoning the EU-ship , they are all , nevertheless , sorry that what is built now has nothing in common with their dreams and hopes for unity and democracy.
Unless we start a serious re-thinking , while thinking itself has been denied from the EU people , this EU-ship will go down much faster than it took it to get started.
The real question is not 'to be in or out' but to be able to say WHAT this EU is all about. And people around know either too little to be able to understand or too much to stop having great fears for what the future could be

Blair 'centre-left'? That's a new one: pretty much centre-right or even just right-wing in my book! And Sarkozy did previously drop some favourable hints about supporting Blair. Blair as President (or Miliband as EU foreign secretary) + Mandelson as PM could, in fact, be the ideal ticket to secure Britain's entry into the Euro. Also a nice slap in the face for Cameron's repatriation plans.

Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. And would the EU really be that indifferent to the UK's departure? If so, why were they so happy to let Blair stitch up Britain's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without offering us a referendum? It'll serve them right if five years of wrangling now ensue. 

Lets hope we get a referendum on the EU in the next 5 years. With support of the EU at all time lows in this country there might be a majority to leave this wretched project. Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Sarah has it on the nail. The BNP got the thick end of a million votes at the EU elections. They are entitled to air their views, but the edition of Question Time was a disgrace. It looked like a lynching. By treating the BNP differently from any other legal political party you merely pander to their inflated egos. But you also reveal your own ingrained bigotry and you ought to make your case against the BNP with reasoned argument. For far too long the 'left' has attempted to close down any debate on asylum and immigration by dancing up and down screaming racist. I've seen it often enough even on these boards. 

You are misrepresenting Cameron, and frankly you ought to know better. 

Cameron gave a pledge that he would hold a referendum on any treaty that emerged from the negotiations then being held. It was made when a general election seemed likely within a matter of weeks. The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified by all member states and it is impossible to un-ratify it. I wish President Klaus had not signed it, but let it lie on his desk for 6 months. I also believe that the whole European project is being foisted upon the peoples of Europe by an arrogant and out of touch political class, and chattering class. 

As to 'Why aren't Labour making a fuss' that is quite simple. I would remind you that Blair/Brown gave a manifesto undertaking to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. Even you must admit that the Lisbon Treaty is that constitution. Merely renaming it, taking out the odd clause doesn't alter the basis of the document. We can but assume that Gordon Brown is a liar. One assumes you were in favour of a referendum and listening to what the people think.  

As to Cameron's position, he might have more cards than you realize. In 2013 there has to be a new budget for the EU. First thing I would do in his position would be to refuse to agree to any budget whatsoever. That would get some peoples attention. And after all why should the EU get a new budget when its accounts have never yet been signed off by its auditors.    

There is a case for democracy. That is the main point, which you fail to pick up. 

'some countries could gain a significant competitive benefit' 

You seem to be very insular. Every time you impose some new 'right' it creates a cost. Those costs have to be paid for by someone - there aint no such thing as a free lunch - and it is the consumer who pays. It is the unemployed who pay because all your good deeds price them out of a job. 

We have just completed the first phase of a project at LexisNexis to put legislation online for free. If you check the index page of statutory instruments (http://lexisweb.co.uk/GetDocument.aspx), you'll see a vast number have been published in recent years. These are not the offences that you appear to be talking about, but are the secondary legislation which is not debated in parliament, and which adds the detail to the Acts. In the past 800-odd years, there have been some 26,000 Statutory instruments published - about 20,000 of them since 1997. It's a staggering statistic, and a slightly different angle perhaps that illustrates just how much of our law is now made in Whitehall, not Westminster.

Take these two:
"They've stolen ALL our jobs" (Daily Star)
"Now Muslims demand: Give us full Sharia law" (The Express)
The first one is an obvious lie, and the second refers to "Muslims" as if they all have this same view on sharia law (as opposed to just a tiny minority).
Do you not see any problem there?

As opposed to the screaming racist to shut down those who oppose mass immigration. Something which vilifies the vast majority of the British population and ignores their views.
Or trying to force one of the founders of Migration Watch out of his job.
Or the state broadcaster, during the last world cup when people of all religions and colours were flying the cross of St George, trying to make out that the flag flying was somehow sinister.
As hypocritical as claiming that those on benefits couldn't be expected to do jobs, and that there aren't any, and that those there are are too low paid then saying we need immigrants to do jobs because the natives won't do them and ignoring any issues about immigration pushing down wages. Or warning us about global warming, and how we must reduce our carbon footprint then importing more and more people who'll need food, heating, transport and somewhere to live. Or Ken Livingstone being happy to campaign for everyones rights then hobnobing with and defending some Muslim loon who thinks gays should be thrown off buildings.

There are plenty of things I have a problem with and that are massively hypocritical. Nothing so special about newspaper headlines.

Such a fascinating starting line, "You need to get out more." Indeed.  I saw in the list of recent comments and had to see what it was referring to. 

I "need to get out more" but haven't figured out a way to do it with CFS/ME - called ME/CFS in England. 

What do you  mean by "You need to get out more."?

Thanks for the apology, Victoria.

I could be wrong, but I understood the family's question to be whether the Civil Liberties Panel (and, by extension, the MPA) intended to investigate this aspect of the Met's behaviour following Ian Tomlinson's death.

It has long been known that the IPCC is investigation the allegations of deliberate misinformation. The Guardian announced the official complaint to the IPCC in April, and the IPCC confirmed that they were investigating it in May.

The independence and objectivity of the IPCC have been seriously questioned since the G20. People have turned to the MPA, yourself and your colleagues in hopes that you will be more willing and able to challenge the behaviour of the Met.

Given the above, are you able to answer the question? Will the Panel investigate the allegations of a cover-up, and will the the MPA take the accusation seriously? People's faith in the IPCC has been rightly shaken - we are looking to involve as many investigatory bodies as possible to bring the Met to account.

Further to the uncertainty yesterday, for which I apologise, The IPCC have now confirmed that they are looking into this aspect of the complaint by the Tomlinson family.  On the Civil Liberties panel we had understood that this was in fact likely to be the case, and that has now been confirmed, so I hope that the Tomlinson family will take some comfort from this in order to help resolve their ongoing concerns.

Can I just remind everyone that we are very keen to hear from anyone who has personal experiences of any demonstration of protest - Were you "kettled" in the Oxford Street May day demos?  were you involved in the Gaza marches?  please let us have your comments - you can email the MPA : PPO@mpa.gov.uk

thanks, Victoria Borwick

owly, surely there's a case for consistency in these matters in a single market? Without them, some countries could gain a significant competitive benefit.