In response, he squirms a bit and claims this interpretation of his words had never crossed his mind. Grounds for a poll about whether he’s dishonest or plain stupid, perhaps?

I recognise that this would have been a tough call to make and that Clegg was pretty much dammed either way. However, that doesnt change my view of the descision and I think the way this was pitched as a matter of principle has certainly elevated the tone of debate; there is more than one principle to be considered here and that is what people have been saying.

This by election may be causing the Tories discomfort but it is not that damaging as things stand. As I understand it they were up 2% in the latest Sunday Times. Also, with a lack of credible oppostion; either from a more progressive platform to 42 days or an actual proponent of 42 days it is difficult to see the merit in it being held.

I don’t express a view on, whether there should be a referendum. But if there were one, I would vote yes

Here it is unshortened (works for me):

http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/02/13/logical-fallacies-and-euroscepticism/

I do not support, or “approve” of drug taking, & would not take any drugs that are currently illegal, except cannabis (which, for the avoidance of doubt, I haven’t smoked yet).

But I regard prohibition as having been a failure. Once again, the punitive nonsense supported by the Sun and the Daily Mail is counterproductive, since it leads to massively increased crime.

I hope that the under 30s, when they reach maturity, will have a more sensible outlook. I’d like to see a serious debate.

The so-called “war on drugs” is, of course, unwinnable, as those directing it know. It continues to be waged because it is in the interests of elites that this should be so.

There cannot be a serious public debate about drugs in this country, because as soon as someone tries to start one, he/she is immediately drowned out in a cascade of emotionally charged humbug about “protecting” young people.

Farmers grow opium poppies in the Henley Constituency again this year while the UK takes primary responsibility – unsuccessfully and at great cost in lives and money – for stopping the Afghans from doing so. We should restrict our concerns to democracy and security.

Prohibition never works and causes more harm, domestically and world wide, than what is prohibited.

Thanks, but “page cannot be displayed” for some reason.

What does bother me is the prominence now given to this one issue in relation to other threats to our liberties that have the potential to harm far more people (eg, ID cards, satellite surveillance of motor vehicles, a national DNA database, curfews, the extension of educational conscription to the age of 18, more draconian liquor laws, etc).

A little noticed assault on our liberties is currently under consideration by the Salmond administration in Edinburgh. And that is the proposal to raise the minimum age for purchasing alcohol in shops to 21. Why no outrcy from Liberty, or from Lib Dem leaders?

I have always considered Salmond a cocky little poseur with a nasty side to him. Well, he proves himself far worse. He is a social authoritarian populist quite happy to persecute an unpopular minority to get votes. The only people Salmond listens to appear to be Donald Trump and Brian Souter. Maybe it is they who told him to do this.

http://tinyurl.com/5y79j3

“-the Lisbon Treaty is not the same document as the Constitutional Treaty. I thought that was a given”.

Weasel words again! Not even wrong! Of course it is not the SAME document. But The Lisbon Treaty is effectively the same as the Cosntitutional Treaty.

I suggest you obtain a copy of Open Europe’s “A guide to the constitutional treaty”, which I have in front of me. See, amongst other 85 pages,Page 4, ‘Introduction: this is the same as the Constitution – even in Britain’

Well, you’re wrong. Just compare the two documents, and you should be able to spot the similarities.

I just wish that Nick Clegg’s LibDems would accept that they promised a referendum on the EU Constitution; the Lisbon Treaty is effectively the same; they know they would lose a referendum on it so they break their promise and offer instead a referendum on ‘In or Out’ which they think they would win.

Enough of rationalisations and weasel words! Come clean! Examine your consciences! And then please keep your promise after all.

In the meantime, for goodness’sake, for the reputation of your party, and for sake of the rest of us , please support the Conservatives in the House of Lords in their bid to delay ratification.

I get the strong impression that Passing Tory would be squeeze letter fodder in an election…

The Lib Dems proposed a referendum on Maastricht – it was voted down by the Major government and the Labour party IIRC.

Try to come to terms with that: I like the cooperation but I don’t like the system. Just like I love this country but I think the political system is a joke.

Also, it is one of those tired but accurate old saws that the upper echelons of the LDs are very pro-Europe but the rest opf the party tend to be a whole heap more Euro-sceptic, much like the rest of the country.

Which is good, isn’t it?

As to Maastricht, no I wasn’t campaigning for a referendum at the time, I was drinking too much and working too little as a student. European treaties were not really a priority for me.