Of course, by ‘true economic governance’, our kind European masters really mean a drive towards fiscal union and European taxation. The proponents of ‘ever closer union’ never fail to exploit a crisis for their benefit and further their goals.

However, this attempt was inevitable. You cannot have a currency covering such a wide geographic area, with a single interest rate set by a central bank and just hope that it will work. The collapse of Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy were predictable, given the cheap rates of credit they were able to obtain in contrast to the state of their national economies and levels of demand.

Yet, while the Eurocrats will always argue that a crisis is caused by a lack of integration (rather than ‘ever closer union’ itself being the actual problem), their road to full fiscal consolidation will be long and contentious – and they are very quickly running out of time and money, with events increasingly playing out beyond their control. At the end of the day, they will be swept along by the markets and events, just like the rest of us. That is European equality for you.

The decision to shed these workers was made after the Government awarded a lucrative contract to German company, Siemens, for the construction of 1,200 new carriages for the £6bn upgrade to the Thameslink route.

The Railway’s Minister, Theresa Villiers, said the bid by Siemens, which will build the new carriages in Germany, represented the “best value for money for taxpayers” and stressed that the contract would create up to 2,000 new British jobs.

This is particularly interesting in light of the comments Ms Villiers made when in opposition during the previous Parliament. Well, I say ‘opposition’, but then there never was very much actual opposing of the Brown Government’s policies by the Conservatives. Indeed, sometimes I wonder whether we even had a change of Government at all. Most of the guff the Government spouts these days could just as easily have been announced by a Labour Minister.

Richard North drills home the duplicity of Government Ministers who say one thing in ‘opposition’ and another in Government:

How very different this was two years ago when our Theresa was outraged by the government’s decision to award a £7.5 billion contract to replace ageing high-speed trains on the Great Western and East Coast main lines.

Bombardier also lost out on that one, that time to a consortium led by the Japanese firm Hitachi, called Agility Trains, which included John Laing and Barclays Bank.

Then as now, the government said the contract would “create and safeguard” UK jobs, claiming 12,500 would benefit. But the then Shadow Transport Minister, who just happened to be Theresa Villiers, dismissed this as “typical spin” from the Government.

“This announcement raises further questions about Gordon Brown’s claims about British jobs for British workers. Geoff Hoon needs to stop the spin and tell the UK’s hard pressed train manufacturing industry the real truth about his decision on replacing intercity trains,” she stormed.

Then, however, the fair Villiers did not have to confront the “real truth” – the realities of the EU’s procurement directives, which prevent British firms being favoured, even if it is more economic in the longer term.

Gosh, now that was a surprise, wasn’t it? As we’ve learnt by now, at the heart of almost every political problem in this country lies the European Union. Such is the degree to which our sovereignty has been diminished that our own Government is incapable of deciding which companies may be awarded state contracts.

This point was backed up by Roger Helmer MEP in his latest email newsletter, who recounts a meeting he recently had with Ms Villiers:

Emma McClarkin raised the important and vexed issue of the rolling stock order that went to Siemens in Germany, not to Bombardier in Derby… Theresa well understood the concern, and the local anger in Derby, but said that the Government after much thought and careful analysis had come to the conclusion that under EU procurement rules, they had no option but to choose Siemens. This leaves outstanding the question why similar French and German orders always seem to go to national suppliers.

The British economy finds itself in a complete mess at the moment, and is slowly sinking into the fiscal abyss along with Greece, Spain, Portugal and the like. The addition of a further 1,400 people to the employment queue is hardly a promising sign of things to come. Tell me again, why are we still a member of the European Union?

In light of the recent media speculation, John Gill on the Freedom Association’s website asks whether the Conservative party have rediscovered euroscepticism? He says:

The Daily Express refers to these revelations as a ‘surge in anti-Brussels feeling within the Government’; and, whilst I have my reservations as to how accurate these reports are, it is encouraging nonetheless that even arch Cameroons, such as Letwin and Hilton, are beginning to see just how damaging an institution the EU is.

Whilst I won’t hold my breath that this will happen any time soon, I am confident that sooner, rather than later, the Tories will have to rediscover euroscepticism to stand any chance of keeping up with public opinion.

While John says he won’t hold his breath at this happening, even to believe that it could happen is of course wishful thinking. In fact it is so wishful as to be almost pure fantasy, since you cannot rediscover something if you had never discovered it in the first place – the Tories never having been a ‘eurosceptic’ or anti-EU party.

Eurosceptic as a definition is pretty much meaningless these days, which could best be summed up as ‘supports the EU but pretends not to’. We’ve had three decades to gaze upon the workings of the European Union and to understand it for what it really is. This is very much a black and white issue. You either do not agree with the European Project and wish to leave it, or you support it and wish to remain within it. There is no in-between, wishy-washy, middle ground. The EU cannot be reformed or changing from within, in part because there is no overall will to do so from the majority of pro-EU member states and even if there were then no mechanisms to bring about such ‘reform’ exist. Therefore ‘euroscepticism’ is a ploy to dupe the gullible into voting for so called ‘eurosceptics’ who are politicians who support the EU because they do not wish to leave.

Further to John’s point, I am not sure I view this supposed ‘surge’ of ‘anti-Brussels feeling’ as an encouraging trend at all. The Tories likely intend to absorb the supposedly ‘eurosceptic vote’ (again, whatever you define that as) and then continue to do nothing about the EU – therefore back to good old business as usual.

It all seems just a little too convenient doesn’t it? It’s all rather wink and nod. Vague hints with nothing officially announced. All is done through smoke and mirrors, speculation by journalists (particularly pro-Government journalists), with nothing substantial or concrete.

As Richard North noted only a few weeks ago, Steve Hilton must be utterly useless as a political adviser to have only just noticed the vast transfer of powers the UK has passed to the EU. Still, this is after all the same man who encouraged Dave to hug-a-hoodie, and who purportedly voted for the Green party at the General Election in 1997. Yet, having said that, Steve Hilton and the Tory advisers are not entirely stupid either. As Helen Szamuely highlighted, there is a common theme in all this:

…the presentation of the Conservative Party as the one and only truly eurosceptic political organization in this country, for which all ‘true’ eurosceptics should vote.

Perhaps the Coalition is not as harmonious as we thought, and that an early election could be likely? Who knows? Or maybe Dave and co have finally realised that the plan to woo Lib Dim voters has spectacularly failed (though one would have thought the General Election would have been proof of that). Whatever the reason, the briefings that have led to this latest round of speculation will have been with votes rather than the voters in mind.

In all likelihood therefore, this is a plan devised by Tories to create the illusion of Conservative opposition to the EU where none in fact exists. David Cameron has spoken on many occasions of his support for the EU and his desire to prevent the British people having a referendum on membership in case we voted to leave. Month after month the EU’s Directives are passed through our Parliament on the nod without as much as a squeak of opposition. And now, suddenly, as if out of the blue, Government ministers think we should leave the EU, without a train of reasoned thought or analysis. Honestly, do they really believe we are all so gullible? Clearly so.

The promise by the Conservatives is, however, not worth the manifesto paper it will likely be printed on. This is because it is practically impossible for any UK Government to abolish Home Information Packs because they have been inflicted upon us by our continued membership of the European Union.

One need only refer to Directive 2002/91/EC which explains the certification of homes and building energy efficiency levels. The Directive came into full force on the 4th of January 2003 when it was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and all member states (including Britain) had to comply with the legislation by the 4th of January 2006.

The deadline of full compliance has of course long since past. We must, by European law (which now takes precedent), certificate all our buildings and homes regardless of whether we wish to or not – all in the name of tackling ‘Global Warming’. We cannot escape from doing so, and while the Conservatives may try to change the name of the Home Information packs to something else, the energy certification which is the essence of the packs must be retained.

While David Cameron would like to keep quiet about ‘Europe’ (by which presumably he means the EU), as Daniel Hannan noted yesterday:

Almost all the things that really annoy people come from Brussels – home information packs, fortnightly bin collections, metric measures, compulsory car seats, all stem from EU directives.

Thus, in most instances you cannot honestly discuss domestic issues in Britain without considering European Union legislation and regulation. This becomes more apparent to people by the day, but still Mr Cameron, the Conservative Party and much of the media refuse to acknowledge the giant EU elephant in the room.

I have also increasingly disliked the way in which ConservativeHome has become almost completely sycophantic towards the Conservative Party and its leadership, rather than remaining a home for conservative opinion that is independent of the political party as was originally the website’s core aim.

However, today Tim has made the right decision. He announced that he applied to join the Freedom Association’s Better Off Out campaign and stated unequivocally that he believes that Britain must leave the European Union. This is a view with which I fully and wholeheartedly agree – and which I’m glad Tim now shares.

Leaving the European Union is but a stepping stone towards the re-establishment of our national sovereignty, our Parliamentary democracy, and the implementation of the absolutely necessary conservative reforms that our society so desperately requires.

Yet, this is not the view of the Conservative Party, nor do I think it may ever be. The party has become too wrapped up with the desires of the liberal political class and national media, and far too interested in the pursuit of office for its own sake to take action over the detrimental nature and rule of ever closer union.

If Tim really believes that Britain should leave the European Union then he will eventually discover, as I have, that the Conservative Party is not the vehicle through which that will be achieved.

He disagreed with Lord Tebbit, Peter Hitchens and that anarchical prat, Paul Staines who called for the electorate to ditch their support for the main political parties as a means of registering their disgust and disapproval over MPs handling of our country and parliamentary expenses.

Conversely, Tim claimed that a large victory for the Conservative Party would accelerate momentum towards the end of the Blair and Brown years. He also commented that Cameron had acted decisively and with resolution over the MPs expenses scandal, and that the formation of a new Conservative-led coalition in the European Parliament would act as a serious opposition.

The other few reasons he gave amounted to little more than a ‘vote for us because the rest are worse’ – and there really is little merit in that line of persuasion. In fact, let us be honest, there really was little in the way of merit in any of his arguments at all.

For example, how exactly will a large vote for the Conservative Party at the European and local elections hasten the end of the Brown and Blair years? Since David Cameron, the self-proclaimed ‘Heir to Blair’, and the Conservative Party are pursuing policies that are virtually identical to that of New Labour, how is voting Conservative meant to be end the Brown and Blair years when politically they seek to continue them in terms of policy?

Furthermore, how exactly did David Cameron act with ‘resolution’ over MPs expenses? Like so many other MPs he too was caught with his hand in the jar, and he had never seriously complained about the purposefully deceptive system of expenses before.

Did Mr Cameron actually sack anyone that mattered or was not in a minor role? No. He simply asked Conservative MPs (and himself) to pay back the money they had immorally taken. This ‘pay it back and we’ll all just forget about it’ attitude is not what I would call ‘acting with resolution’ at all, despite what the media may say.

Finally, you cannot create any real opposition to the European project in the EU Parliament. It is the EU Commission that acts as the Executive and produces legislation. The Executive are not drawn from Parliament and therefore the EU Parliament cannot repeal EU laws or create them – only agree or disagree.

Thus MEPs and parties cannot fulfil their manifesto commitments because they do not have power or authority to execute their mandate. Therefore, having more Conservative MEPs in the EU Parliament arguing for ‘a freer and more decentralised Europe’ will not make the blindest bit of difference to the make-up of the EU. You cannot initiate real change from within the Parliament.

The Conservatives as a whole are not particularly interested in the issue of European Union any more. David Cameron has used the European elections campaign as a platform for national issues including calling for an immediate General Election and his attempted cover up of the MPs expenses scandal, rather than to discuss the Lisbon Treaty or loss of sovereignty to the EU. As Lord Tebbit suggests, do they really deserve our vote?

Lord Tebbit called for the electorate to withdraw their votes from the three main political parties at the European elections in June in order to send a message to those parties that their votes should not be taken for granted. He wrote:

Local elections, the great British public should treat just as normal but at the European elections, in my judgment they should send a very sharp message to the leaders of the three national parties by not voting for any of the national party candidates.

He went on to add in later interviews that the electorate should steer clear of voting for the socialist and racialist BNP, but other than that he did not mind who people voted for (or not at all), just that they didn’t vote Lib Dem, Labour or Conservative.

Even less than a decade ago this story would have caused a media storm. There would have been multiple front page news headlines detailing ‘furious’ Conservative splits over ‘Europe’ and the culturally leftist BBC would have had a field day.

Things though have since moved on. The Conservatives are still irrevocably split over the European Union, but the official media and political narrative has changed. Today’s official line is David Cameron good; Gordon Brown bad. In order to facilitate a change of Government, or rather Westminster administration, the media, having failed to make David Cameron popular, are now trying the other option which is to make Gordon Brown unpopular.

Therefore, any stories that might portray Cameron in a negative light are now willingly suppressed by the media. How else could one account for the complete lack of coverage over Lord Tebbit’s intervention, especially by the BBC, and the establishment papers of the Times and the Guardian?

It is not as though Lord Tebbit is a minor party figure either. As a former Chairman of the Conservative party and self appointed keeper of the Thatcherite flame, his comments carry weight within many circles and thus there is even more reason, one would have thought, for a fuss to be made about his public dissent.

During a press conference, David Cameron was asked about the action he would take over Lord Tebbit’s intervention. He said:

As a former party chairman, he should know a thing or two about party discipline and he should probably know a thing or two about the rules about supporting other parties. He was treading a very careful path and I would warn him, if he slips off that path he’s sitting as an independent.

Yet, as Cameron and his Conservative leadership well know, the party need Lord Tebbit more than they are prepared to publicly admit. Their pursuit of office lies in the knowledge that their core conservative vote must come out at the election and send them into office. If the party were to publicly ditch Lord Tebbit then this may act as a sudden wakeup call to tribal Conservative voters that perhaps their party is not quite what it may seem.

It never ceases to amaze me how newspapers and our media manage to ignore the elephant in the room on this issue which is, of course, EU regulatory and legislative influence.

Why, they wonder out loud in their inverted columns, are Gordon Brown and the Government so determined to privatise Royal Mail and risk unpopularity from their voters and backbench MPs? Many times has this important question been asked, but so very rarely has the real answer been revealed by our mainstream press.

As I had previously discussed here, here and here, the European Union’s Postal Service Directives are responsible for this latest bout of angst over privatisation. Many journalists and MPs know about these laws, but, because it is not part of their official narrative, they are publicly ignored, as if they did not even exist.

Desperately they struggle on, twisting and turning over the same old ground in a bitter attempt to come up with any reason, any excuse, anything about the privatisation of Royal Mail by the Labour Government, except to mention the EU dimension.

Yet, the power and influence of the EU can only be ignored for so long. I realise that there are many on the Left who have for some time seen it as an entirely favourable proposition to abolish Britain because it does not conform to their political vision.

Britain has retained its monarchy and yet is democratic, it was traditional and yet able to modernise, was capitalist but had a social conscience, and had a class system but did not present a bar to talent. According to the theories of the Left, Britain should not have existed, and so, slowly but surely, they have sought to make absolutely sure that it did not.

Britain is being dismantled before our very eyes, piece by piece. Centuries of tradition have and are being swept away to be replaced with bland conformism and blind allegiance to the benevolent new social and political order.

Yet, there are those within the Labour Party and the Left who still do not believe that capitulation to the anti-democratic European Union is right. These people must quickly learn that if they want to remain a member of the European Union then they will have to accept that their country will be run by the European Union to an ever increasing extent – with further privatisation down the road.

You cannot, as the Conservative Party pretends, find a solution between two such opposing ends of the spectrum. Either you pledge yourself to ‘ever closer union’ and privatisation, or leave.

Perhaps, for some of those on the Left, the privatisation of Royal Mail by their eurofanatical leaders will act as a wakeup call. The national institutions including the Postal Service that they cherish will be wiped away by Euro decree unless they make a stand.

But it cannot simply be a stand against their party’s leaders but a stand against our real Government in Brussels and for the rapid reimplementation of British Parliamentary sovereignty. Only then can we have an open and honest debate about privatisation. Only then will we be able to save our Postal Service.