On regulation, Cameron said in his speech “I am pleased that our proposal to increase the protection for depositors to £50,000 has been taken up. I’m pleased that the European regulators are looking at our proposal to bring stability to the banking system.” Why is Cameron looking to regulators in Brussels to bring stability to Britain’s banking system? It is unnecessary. Does this sound like a Government or Opposition in control of the country’s affairs? Does it not sound more like a new leader who in the midst of a crisis is prepared to look to Europe to shift responsibility and power? Ireland too made that huge mistake and now it is looking to the EU for identifying what went wrong.

On the referendum, Cameron also makes the referendum pledge (which must only be welcomed), claiming that “Next year in those European elections we will campaign with all our energy for that referendum on the European constitution that Labour promised but never delivered.” However, there is still no consistent framework to explain why there is a referendum – which makes the pledge wobbly and likely to be a vote-winning tactic which can never actually be employed. (If the Tories are not in until 2010, this will likely skip past the ‘Irish solution’ and the Treaty would have been ratified). I also do not understand the logic of electing MEPs on the pledge of a referendum, when for all intents and purposes the ability to honour of a referendum only makes sense in Westminster, where a parliamentary Act is required to push one through. However, it is good news, I would say, that they support the line of our elected representatives in Westminster.