Too busy sneering Mr. Wallace has missed Farage's clever move. Far from asking "Do you want the UK to be in or out of the EU?" Farage is going for something more like the Scottish questions. Here it is:

"the question should be along the lines of “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”

Now you can remind me that the independence voters lost the Scottish referendum. But the lesson of the Scottish referendum is that independence, from the UK or from the EU, is a long drawn out affair. Any EU vote will not settle the matter once and for all, the way some Europhiles seem to think. No. Whatever the result the EU vote will be just the beginning of the process of the UK leaving.

Firstly, for the "In" side to win Britain will have to be given concessions. These concessions will set Britain apart from the rest of the EU, leave us in an outer band. We will not joint the Euro, so we are already not sitting at the "Top Table", the new rules will be meant to protect us from this fact. Two things will follow; to a certain extent the new rules will not work and we will end up disappointed, just as Major was over subsidiarity. Secondly, the rest of the EU will continue to evolve away from us. Making our relationship with the EU ever more tenuous. We will become the nation the Europhiles fear, the fax democracy where we are told what to do without having a say. There is no centre there to hold.

Meanwhile, this is a vote where a good defeat for "out" will be far more powerful than a poor win for "in", as Scotland has shown, and UKIP, like the SNP, will be there to benefit.

Mr. Wallace's post is not funny, if it was meant to be, is not informed, because he missed the crucial wording of the referendum, but suffers most from failing to grasp the further implications of any vote.

Philip Dunne is quite right to point to the high quality of the Royal Navy's new fleet of ships and submarines. He is also right to be concerned about securing value for money. The Government has also had to make difficult decisions on finances due to the economic climate.

But that fact is that while the UK is building one of the finest fleets in the world, with some of the most capable platforms (yes, they have faults, especially the carriers, but power is a relative, not absolute quality, and they are better than what almost anyone else has got), yet the fact remains that the overall numbers are very small. Britain is one of the largest economies in the world with global interests and alliances. We intend to patrol our interests and hope to have a battle group ready to deploy to a hot spot with the following: 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Helicopter carrier (Ocean), 2 Albion Class assault ships (deploy troops and vehicles to land), 6 Type 45 destroyers, 13 Type 42s and 6 Astute hunter killers.

Not all of these will be available at all times. When you consider the fact that some of each type will have to be laid up for maintenance or out of the line for training purposes is means that at any one time the deployed fleet will be smaller. It is true that in a pinch laid up ships and training ships can be deployed. But lets consider deployments: home fleet, the Gulf, Med, Falklands, Atlantic/Caribbean, training with the US, the Baltic, NATO and Battle Group. That is eight deployments. Some, such as the Falklands, Atlantic/Caribbean and training with the US might only require one ship. But a Battle Group requires at the very least: one carrier, one Type 45, two Type 42s and one astute. What should our deployment in the Baltic be? What about in the Med with possible Greek instability in a vital region?

We do not have enough ships for war. The line is stretched thin in peace time. A minimum fleet would be:

2 Aircraft Carriers - 3 would be better with the 3rd in extended reediness.
2 Helicopter Carriers.
3 Albion Type Assault ships with one on extended readiness.
9 Type 45s with 6 deployed, one for training, one out for maintenance and the sixth in extended reediness.
30 Type 42s with two for training, two out for maintenance and one or two on extended reediness.
9 Astute with one for training, one out for maintenance and one on extended reediness.

Mr. Dunne is delivering a first class fleet, no question, but it is too small for purpose.

You are correct only in so far as you lump all these eurosceptics in together. However, the European brands of euroscptisisum of both the right and the left are fundamentally at odds with the British type. European eurosceptisisum tends to see Brussels as too pro-market, too international, too global and want to move in a direction of great national protectionism.

The Brits are the opposite, they see the EU as undemocratic, un-competative, over-regulated, a closed market that fails to engage enough with the world, and want to sign free trade deals with other economies. There is little to no common ground. The two forces are pulling in opposite directions. Were Brussels to try to accommodate one it would only further alienate the other (assuming all nations had the same settlement - which in reality they do not).

This argument that Europe is becoming more Eurosceptic and that it is "moving our way" and therefor we should stay in is a position put by some. But it is one that only holds up so long as the wind is blowing your way. And the winds of EU history have been blowing against the UK for decades. I see nothing to suggest that the winds are not going to swing back toward the pro-Brussels lot in the future. Of course they will.

Britain needs a separate deal. Free trade but political independence. The EU should have no power of us in any way or form. And we should have no say in their affairs. Just a free trade deal. We will take up our seat and our vote at the WTO again and speak for ourselves. The Europeans are our friends, allies, trading partners, but they are not our compatriots.

Its time to go.

Puny? Britain is the world's 6th largest economy. It is the 5th largest trading nation. It is the world's financial capital. It is the 4th largest military power. It is one of the P5 at the UN where it has a veto. It is a centre of learning, engineering, research, medicine, technology, culture...and yet blinkered Europhiles such as Kleintastic constantly and ignorantly bang on that the UK is puny, that outside the EU it would be some washed up, isolationist, pathetic looser of a nation.

The EU costs Britain influence in the world. We are less important because we are a member. We are less powerful. We matter on the world stage less. It is sucking the life blood of power from us and provides us with little in return. Since Lisbon we have given up our right to vote at the WTO and other world bodies that now make rules on international trade. Instead the EU votes for us. Britain has one voice among 28, but in reality our influence at the WTO and other trade bodies is less than 1/28th because our economy is so different from European economies; ours is 70% service based (where the single market is incomplete), while the Europeans have agrarian and manufacturing based economies. Our interests are different and the EU's votes at the WTO reflect the interests of the agrarian manufacturing majority and ignore Britain's. Britain would do better representing itself and having its own vote. New Zealand has a bigger say and more influence at the WTO than the UK does. This example is repeated at every single other trade body, from those governing car regulations to sheep, where Britain is underrepresented. Outside the EU Britain would count for more in the world. That may well be self-interested, but it is neither puny nor protectionist.

Meanwhile, inside the EU, the UK loses over 60% of the votes in the Commission, the body the drafts EU law, while Germany and France win over 80% of the time. When Commission draft law goes on to the EU Parliament Germany and France succeed in amending it in the majority of instances while the UK fails in the majority of instances. A nation can then appeal to have a law that goes against its interests reviewed and reconsidered. The UK has appealed 50 times and has lost 50 times. That's not influence, its a humiliation.

At some point being a grownup means taking responsibility for ones self, standing up, speaking for oneself and being counted. So long as we follow Kleintastic's spineless, frightened cowerings Britain will fail to wield the influence its holds. We are a nation punching well under our weight.

It is right that the Labour ministry in this Council has resigned en mass. But it is wrong to suspend democratically elected Government and replace it with unelected commissioners.

If I remember correctly Cameron and the Conservative Party were very upset recently at the unelected commissioners being appointed to run things from Brussels, especially Junker, over the heads of British opinion and democracy. And quite right too. Cameron has made a big deal about the democratic deficit in the EU. He is bang on. So why suspend democracy in this instance?

Could the reason be that he might not like the result of any election? A third of Rotherham's council seats were contested at the last council elections. Labour won 11 of them, and UKIP won 10. But UKIP topped the poll, winning more votes than Labour overall (Labour won their seats by narrower margins with UKIP a close second, while UKIP won by greater margins). Not a single Conservative was elected. UKIP are now the main Opposition party on the Rotherham Council. Labour still have a lot of support in this area and despite their difficulties would still do well, but UKIP are snapping at their heals. It is not beyond the realm of probability that UKIP might secure a majority if the entire Council were put up for election in a special election, or, UKIP might emerge as the largest group in a hung council. The last thing Cameron wants before the General Election is UKIP coming to power somewhere. It would give the party added legitimacy, demonstrate that they are the challenger to Labour in many northern seats, show they can win not only seats but power, but they would not be in office long enough to be judged.

So, apparently, the solution to the violation of the rights of so many people in Rotherham is the suspension of democracy. This undermines Tory credibility on the lack of democracy in Europe. Not a good move.

I'm afraid the St. George flag is being given a miss this year because of the vote in Scotland. Apparently the view is that Scots will only want to stay in the UK so long as the English are not proud of being English. Apparently we do not live in a union where both Scots and English can be proud of their heritage. This is part of a wider political effort to dampen English identity and culture while at the same time boosting the identity and culture of others who live in this nation as part of multiculturalism. It is a sad indictment of multiculturalism that it has no place for the English in it, except as the bad guy. This is the unfortunate reason why British politicians, from the PM down, are constrained from showing support for the English team in the World Cup.

Cameron would do well to start with the British passport. A passport serves two purposes: first, it is a means of identifying the bearer, second, it is an expression of the bearer's nationality. The first is practical, the second is part of national identity and patriotism.

Since the development of electronic passports where most of the data an immigration officer relies upon to identify the bearer has been encoded into a magnetic strip the document itself has become almost superfluous for the point of view of identifying someone.

Gone are the days of simply holding up the burgundy document and being waved through. Because of security issues every passport must be scanned. So there is no longer any practical reason for Brits to have the same coloured passport as other EU citizens. The only reason for having a passport that looks like all the other EU passports is to foster a European sense of identity, of European patriotism. In other words our European passports are a deliberate attempt to subvert British identity and patriotism and promote European identity and patriotism.

If Cameron et al are serious about Britain bringing back powers from Brussels, about us remaining an independent country, one excellent place to start would be with a passport redesign. No one feels any connection to the ugly burgundy passport. They are just another alienating aspect of the EU. Many hide their passports in covers with other designs on them. Our passport should be dark blue and the words "European Union" should be removed (or add the names of all the international organisations we are part of: UN, NATO, WTO, etc).

This is a step that would send a very clear message of both identity and intent. But it would not require treaty change or the agreement of our EU partners. The common design was adopted at a meeting of European heads of Government outside the EU, it is not an EU agreement. Moreover, the UK is actually part of a supranational passport control group that is made up of Anglosphere countries, not European ones.

Having a truly British passport would be a great first step to rekindling a British patriotism.

There is a clamour for alternatives to Britain's EU membership, and this is right. Before we drift so far apart from the EU that it becomes obvious that our membership is no longer tenable we do not to arrange our affairs so that we continue to have a presence on the world stage. But it is surprising to see this mad rush for a like for like replacement for the EU. Mr. Lilico suggests a Federation of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, called CANZUK. Well, I'm not sure about the name - how about Canzukia, anyone? - but he is spot on about the similarities between the people, the law, culture, history, Government, not to mention the heft such a union would wield in the world. It would be a large and powerful state. But is it wanted?

Firstly, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are very happy being independent nations. Unlike the UK they do not suffer any insecurity about being able to "survive" on their own. They are in no rush to surrender their independence.

Secondly, Britain's drive to leave the EU is partly driven by a desire for independence. We want what Australia, Canada and New Zealand already have: freedom.

Rather than a Federation some sort of lose treaty organisation - I know, a Common Market! - could be formed. I think all would be happy with the free movement of goods, services and capital. And I'm sure we could agree to some sort of shared standards and rules for immigration. We already work together with the USA on defence through the UKUSA treaty, we work together on passports and share embassy facilities and work. It would be a very natural grouping, while at the same time leaving each country with the independent ability to deal with its own backyard and special circumstances. And there's no need for a new "national" name like Canzukia or whatever, nor for a new flag.

But maybe the thinking is on the right track. Just keep in mind the problem with the EU is that it goes too far. Charging off too far in the other direction is not a solution.

It is worth noting that Diego Garcia had no native inhabitants when discovered by the Spanish explorer Diego García de Moguer in the 16th century and was unpopulated until settled by the French in 1793. There is no such thing as an indigenous Chagossian.

A number of different groups tried to settle the island, including first the French, then the British, then the French again. Each time they failed and people left. Finally it was settled by several European families who started oil plantations, and the islands are also known as the Oil Islands. The oil plantations brought in workers from other islands. These groups settled on the islands and had children. These were the first Chagossians. They most definitely have rights, but these are complicated by the fact that they were born on private property and the owners of the private property decided to sell that property to others who wanted to use it for other purposes. When the property was sold the old owners, the workers and everyone else left. The workers and their children born on the islands went home to the islands they originated from. For some this meant going "home" to a place they had never seen. There is a great deal that is unfair about this. But these people have been compensated in the past. I'm not saying there is not an issue here, I'm just saying its much less clear cut than is presented above, that the people involved do not have any indigenous rights, and the writer fails to acknowledge that this is not the first time an attempt has been made to settle this and people have got compensation.

If it is about the right of return rather than money then should the land not be returned to the original private owners who had houses there and were born their for generations? Isn't it really theirs? And if it is then we are talking about giving the island to Europeans, Brits I think, the decedents, I think, of three families. Surely that's not political correct? Imagine the outrage in the area if you started settling white people. So you can't do that, and nobody, tellingly, is saying you should. So we need to keep in mind that when the writer above talks about the Chagossians he does not mean the white ones. He only means some of them, not all of them. So he is picking who he wants to have rights there and who he does not want to have rights there.

This article is very one sided and one wonders why the writer is so hot for one side of a clearly difficult question especially given the value of the island to Western security?

Paul Goodman is right to state that South Thanet is not a Labour target. It is a UKIP target seat. He makes no mention of this. It may even be the seat where Nigel Farage stands.

It is common to report that UKIP will get no seats in 2015 despite its polling. This is what comes out of a universal swing calculation and it ignores local factors. UKIP did very well indeed in Thanet at the last local elections. Can they sustain this? Flash in the pan? Anything is possible. But what any serious consideration of this seat should take into account is that UKIP will be a factor and possibly a contender in South Thanet.

Mr. Goodman is very complementary about Laura Sandys. But the only thing I have ever heard about her is that she is strongly pro-EU. This has been a real bonus for UKIP in the seat. The truth of the matter is that Laura Sandy's is a liability in South Thanet. The Conservatives need a Eurosceptic in the seat if they are going to hold off UKIP.

As to the Conservatives being a big tent I would agree with that in general, but not on Europe.