I don't think anyone I've spoken to about that debate has been in the least bit impressed by the performance of our MPs. Witterings was so depressed that he had to take a break.

It is not surprising therefore, that Booker – in and amongst a nightmare week that had BT scrambling his telephone lines – should find space in his column to remark on the vacuity of our MPs.

His piece starts, however, with the Ken Clarke show on Radio 4's Today programme, a more vacuous item it is hard to recall. This was the 12-minute interview last Thursday in which that battered old Euromaniac was excitably egged on by John Humphrys to explain why it would be "a fatal mistake" for Britain to leave the EU.

View full article here

When I see John Bercow I'm reminded of Ronnie Corbett, who was, so they say, the shortest RAF officer on record. Corbett as comedian played up to his stature by sitting in an enormous chair and telling daft stories. By contrast Bercow just sits in an enormous chair and is daft, stupid even. An ideal Leader/Speaker of the House.

Cavities will resonate with any signal source striking a wavelength that fits. Regardless of the signal coming from Brussels or the cavity's "advisor".

Perhaps "advisor" is the wrong word.... I got it: "Ventriloquist" is a closer fit.

This is an example of one of the many "insurmountable problems" which Cameron appears to have ignored, or is blissfully unaware of.
Leaving aside for a moment the position of Lisbon and Article 50, I have yet to learn from any source (you may have dealt with this Richard?) any in depth comment on the whole issue of the legitimacy of the EU Commission as a "negotiating body".
The question arises, how can anybody, or even any legitimate representative of a democratic state, negotiate with an unelected, self appointed, unaccountable, "rogue" body?
Be it Barosso, Rumpy, Ashton et al - none of them have any democratic legitimacy - they have no authority to represent anything or anbody. In fact, in my book they are nothing more than private individuals at best, or arrogant usurpers at worst. Why do weak minded British politicians assume such legitimacy?

They need to say to these jumped up self appointees - WHO THE HELL ARE YOU, and what right democratic right do you have to assume some sort of power or authority over democratically elected representatives?

It also begs the question as to what is really meant by our politicians "giving", or ceding power to such a body.

Thanks ... it's been corrected on the web site.