As it now turns out, it was probably not a coincidence at all. It’s suspected that the eco-protesters were given access to Parliament by either an MP or researcher – an act that was no doubt purposefully staged to divert media attention away from our Referendum Rally taking place below.

This cunning ruse of course worked like a charm. The media (always desperate for scandal and sensation) rapidly made the rooftop protest their main news item. As I returned to Paddington station after the rally, billboards advertising the Evening Standard claimed to have exclusive photographs of the eco-protest. No mention of the far larger and more important EU Referendum rally.

Be that as it may, the Referendum Rally and Lobbying seemed to go well, though obviously the likelihood of us obtaining a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty looks increasingly slim. When I arrived in Westminster just after lunch the day’s events were already in full swing. While the eco-morons chained themselves to the Parliament roof railings, those participating in the Referendum Rally below and waiting to lobby their MP engaged in that most British of things: they formed a long and orderly queue.

Elsewhere at the Methodist Central Hall I listened to a number of speeches by various campaign group leaders including trade unionists, MEPs, and the Director of the I Want A Referendum. The best among these speeches were probably those by Roger Helmer MEP (who gained quite a few laughs from the audience) and the Sunday Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker.

However, as Dr Richard North commented on his EU Referendum blog yesterday:

When today’s day return tickets to London are tomorrow’s waste, the issues will still be there. When the Lisbon treaty is ratified, they will still be there. When the European Union brings out its next treaty – which indeed it will – the issues will still be there.

He is completely correct. We need to remember that this will be a long and protracted battle to regain the freedoms and liberties of the democracy our country once was. Today was only one such battle – there will be many others.

Dan explains his imminent expulsion on his blog on the Telegraph website and how the EPP leadership have not taken kindly to his consistent calls in Parliamentary debates for a referendum to be held on the EU Constitution.

Mr Hannan’s latest remarks in the EU Parliament, in which he compared the voting of increased powers for Parliamentary President Hans Gert-Pöttering to Hitler’s Enabling Act in Germany of 1933, was the final straw for EPP Leader Joseph Daul who had by that point completely lost patience with Daniel’s admirable filibustering and democratic principles in calling for a referendum.

A decision on Mr Hannan’s membership of the EPP is to be made next week, but I think that we all know that somebody somewhere has already made that decision and therefore any public consultation will just be for show. So much for supposedly democratic practice in the European Union.

Perhaps this outcome was in the end not all too much of a surprise since there will always be individuals willing to prevent others engaging in democratic and free debate with whose views they do not agree?

Many Universities in Britain currently hold a ‘no-platform’ policy for groups such as the BNP and the likes of David Irving. Only last year the University of Bath’s Student Union voted to bar Nick Griffin from speaking at a private event hosted in one of its auditoriums. Therefore it actually came as a pleasant surprise to discover that the Oxford Union had actively voted to allow Mr Griffin to be challenged in an open debate.

Regardless of whether you agree with Nick Griffin or David Irving (and I for the most part do not) then it should be generally accepted that if their views are so wrong, then they should be challenged through debate and their arguments shown to be incoherent – not instead to try and force Mr Griffin and Irving into silence, which benefits no-one and in the end often has the undesirable effect of providing them with public sympathy.

Thus it is not so much a problem that protests against the speakers took place, as this was perfectly within their right, but it was the manner in which they did protest that was disagreeable and wrong. The Oxford Union voted democratically by a two to one margin to allow Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak at a private establishment, and yet by trying to prevent the debate from taking place at all or baring ticket holding members from entering the hall, the Leftist protesters in affect stooped to an apprehensible level. As I said previously, if the views of Griffin and Irving are so obviously wrong, as many of them quite clearly are in my opinion, then all that need be done is to prove them so in debate.

What’s more, arguably a great deal more fuss than was necessary surrounded the debate. Had those persons who disagreed with Nick Griffin not protested in the manner that they did at his being allowed to speak, then last night’s event in Oxford would not have hit the national headlines nor would the BNP have gained anywhere near as much media coverage. Therefore in reality, those supposedly most against the views held by Nick Griffin and David Irving did most to help promote them – all without actually challenging them through open debate either.

In general there is, I would imagine, an ulterior motive behind the façade of outrage and indignation expressed by protestors like those in Oxford yesterday and anti-fascist campaigners elsewhere. As Daniel Hannan pointed out a week or so ago on his Telegraph blog:

The answer, I think, is that Lefties like to exaggerate the threat from what they call ‘the far Right’ in order to taint, by association, the mainstream Right.

In his post, Daniel later goes on to correctly outline that there is in fact very little actually right-wing or indeed conservative in the programmes of continental neo-fascist parties throughout Europe, inclusive of the British National Party. However, a convenient myth has been developed around the ‘right-wing’ whereby without reason, the left can lump the predominately socialist inclined fascists together with the conservative right and in doing so attack small-state conservatives who, as Daniel Hannan again remarks, ‘couldn’t be ideologically further removed’ from the neo-nazis.

Once again regarding the debate that eventually took place in Oxford last night; ours and future generations must remember that there really can be no compromise in exercising ours and others’ right to free speech, no matter how odious or repugnant the views of those we disagree with may be.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) also said that there would be a full debate on the EU Referendum issue at its annual conference in Brighton.

The question of Britain’s relationship with the European Union is, I believe, the greatest and most defining issue of our time. Not hospital waiting list times. Not the war in Iraq. And certainly not ‘climate change’.

The challenges that face Britain today can all eventually be traced back, in some shape or form, to the monolith institutions of the European Union and the binding legislation they create. These affect all aspects of British life including how much we spend on our hospitals, which criminals we can or can’t deport, control of our national borders and the core tenants of our criminal justice system. The EU now governs and presides over most aspects of how British people go about the business of their everyday lives.

The referendum announcements by the Unions are therefore, on the face of it, very good news. The more voices that collectively call for a referendum, the harder it will be for Gordon Brown and the Government to ignore us.

However, there is one slight drawback to all of this. While the Trade Unions are demanding a referendum, it’s not certain whether they will later campaign for a ‘no’ vote.

Currently the RMT and GMB are backing a referendum on the grounds that the EU Treaty is practically identical to the Constitution for which Labour promised a referendum – but also because the EU Treaty does not go far enough in its supposed labour reforms. Arguably, what the Unions in fact wish to see is ‘more EU’ rather than less – or none at all.

Despite this, and while the Unions and TUC deliberate over their next move, there is gathering pace behind an EU Referendum march and rally being organised in London for the 27th of October which aims to assemble more than half a million protesters. The rally’s excellent website and further details can be found here.

The Greater London Authority has erected a ‘security fence’ around Mr Haw’s camp in Parliament Square to supposedly prevent homeless people setting up tent on the grass. All war protestors except for Mr Haw have been removed from the site.

In addition to the fence, a spokesman for the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, claimed that, ‘Parliament Square is not a campsite and no city can tolerate a situation where people are setting up tents and urinating and defecating on one of its central squares’. So the group of protestors are now apparently a health and safety hazard too.

Last May, Scotland Yard wasted a total of £111,000 of taxpayer’s money on an overnight raid to remove the majority of the protest placards which adorned his camp in Parliament Square – all under the guise of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

It seems the powers that be really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for excuses and reasons to prevent Mr Haw and his associates from publicly disagreeing with their policies. I am not anti-war myself, but I do believe Mr Haw and others like him have a legitimate right to stage a public protest against something with which they do not agree.