Don’t worry about telling us what you think about the Lisbon treaty Dave, just promise us the chance to have our say!

Ah, politics and politicians. There has been a lot of talk since the expenses crises about how our elected servants need to stop taking the public for granted and actually start listening to them for once. Now I don't advocate, like some people, that the populace should be allowed to vote on every single piece of legislation or decision taken in some sort of bizarre mix of Prime Minister's Questions and the X-factor. I don't even think that we should have a direct say on the vast majority of decisions taken by our government. After all, the whole point of having elections in a representative democracy is to appoint or turf out those who do. What I have always believed is that democracy is best served when political choices are taken at the lowest practical level because in such cases it is easier for the general population, if they are so inclined, to influence the decisions taken in their names. This becomes increasingly difficult with decisions that can only be taken at a national level, such as those involving defence or foreign affairs, but (and admittedly it's a big one) as long as we have effective representatives holding the government to account then there should be sufficient oversight.

There are though some proposals that have such large implications for our constitution and thus the way in which we run our supposedly democratic country, that in my opinion it would be morally unjustifiable to deny citizens the right to accept or reject them. There is no doubt, except in the strange parallel universe in which our present government seems to reside, that the Lisbon Treaty is such a document. Other figures in Europe have no qualms about admitting this, as did the former French president, Valarie Giscard d'Estaing, who said that the Lisbon treaty and his still-born European constitution were for all intents and purposes the same thing. French voters are cynical (or perhaps supine) enough to accept that their politicians are sufficiently slippery to have used a rebranding of the constitution they rejected in a plebiscite as a treaty thus removing the need for a further referendum. This contrasts with the inept shower that purports to be the UK's government, who try to have us believe the treaty is nowhere near as significant. At a time when politician's stock is at (what I sincerely hope) will prove to be its nadir, such blatant lying should be challenged in the strongest of manners.

Step forward David Cameron. As I write the media is currently salivating at the prospect of the Conservative party potentially pressing the self-destruct button labelled Europe at its forthcoming conference in Manchester. It has been said that the Tory leader must walk a tight-rope between the Eurosceptics in his party and the minority that wishes to continue with European integration. It has been said that the government will use this issue in an attempt to distract the media and public from what the Tories have to say about their wider policies, attempting by claiming that they are the same old divided party as they were in the 1990s. I must confess to being partial in that I, as somebody who is going to vote conservative this time around, am worried that the Tories will descend into a debate about this subject that will be reported as infighting by the media. I hope that David Cameron will be deft enough to manage this situation, but frankly I think he has boxed himself into a corner when he needn't have.

Dave's first mistake was to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if, at the time of the forthcoming election, not all the countries in the EU had ratified it. This, after the Irish "amended" their ways by voting yes at the second time of asking, has now put him in a difficult position as he is not prepared to guarantee a plebiscite if the treaty is in force by the time of our election. At best this gives the impression of dithering, and at worst it may suggest to the electorate that in reality he would rather not have a referendum. Given the low esteem that politicians are held in at present, playing around with the electorate is not a wise thing to do. Labour can say what they like as they are desperate and they have nothing to lose so they will probably label the Conservatives as a thousand and one things before the election. Europe offers them an opportunity, as they know the Tories must obtain an almost unprecedented result at the next election if they are to win an absolute majority. The electorate are still unsure of the Conservatives and any potentially divisive issues could cost the party dear. Remember, if no one party wins an overall majority at the polls, this will give Gordon Brown the opportunity to cling to power by forming a coalition with the Liberals, even if Labour finishes a poor second in the polls.

So my advice to Dave is this; when you get up to give your speech to the party conference this week push the idea once again of putting real power in the hands of the people. Promote the localist agenda by saying where possible that as many decisions as possible should be made at the level of government closest to the people. It can then be argued that if we should trust the populace to have a bigger say over how their local communities are run, then they should have the right to vote in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, regardless of whether or not it has been ratified by the election. He should then go on to argue that in his opinion, the Lisbon Treaty would be bad based on the fact that it would concentrate even more power in an unaccountable political elite, just at the time when the people are demanding more and more transparency from their politicians. If anybody were to argue that point he could point to the sidestepping of French and Dutch referenda results, and the "vote until you get the answer right" policy in Ireland. But the key point would be to stress that the people are the boss, that it should be their choice to make, and if they were to decide to accept the treaty then as their servants, a conservative government would move on, do as it is told, and get on with the job without being so arrogant as to ask the people again if they're sure they made the right choice. Put quite simply, democracy shouldn't just be left to the X-factor.

Acts of fraternity to conserve the liberty of a convicted criminal are nothing but a smack in the face for equality.

I love France, I really do, but goodness me there are sometimes when I think the politicians and the chattering classes really need a good talking to. France is in the thrall of the Roman Polanski extradition and it has been amazing to see not only luvies, but also politicians here (including the Foreign Minister, and to a certain extent President Sarkozy) say that the fact that a paedophile, who has been on the run for more than 30 years, has eventually been caught is a bad thing! Please don't get me wrong, I think the man is very talented, and yes of course this is somebody who has known real tragedy in his life. Talent and sympathy, however, provide no justification for the denial of justice, particularly for a crime such as this, where he has, lest we forget, admitted a certain amount of culpability.

I should by now have become cynical enough where the French media and intelligentsia are concerned to realise that, despite all the noise they make about "les droits de l' homme", "la justice", "la solidarité", "la république" etc, these are in fact ideals to be aspired to by us little people, the ordinary citizens comprising around 99.99% of the population, as espoused by our cultural and intellectual superiors inhabiting the increasingly incestuous spheres of academia, the media and politics that make up a large proportion of what is effectively the ruling elite of France . This great caste of cultural shepherds, the aristocracy of the 5^th republic, never tire of telling the French what they should be thinking and how they should behave. But woe betide anybody that contradicts their humanistic gospels as certain writers and thinkers have discovered, for the caste will at best make every interview you ever give a cross-examination; a trial not only of one's work and opinions, but of one's very soul. At worst such people will be forgotten about or actively ridiculed.

Behaviour like this is bad enough, but it would be just about digestible if the members of the caste were the fine examples of virtue they undoubtedly would be if they ever followed their own advice. The problem is of course, as a group, they never have and they never will, and it is this arrogance that can be found in any decrepit debauched ruling class. The case of Roman Polanski is a fine example: where might I ask is the social justice in not letting a convicted sex offender be accountable for the crimes he has been convicted of committing; why for example in a news report lasting for five minutes on French TV's main new broadcast yesterday, did a woman representing a society for abused children talk for less than 30 seconds?

One line that has been rolled out by the French establishment, including the culture secretary Fréderic Mitterrand, is that the crime took place so long ago that Polanski should effectively be pardoned. This ridiculous notion is actually considered to be fair by many in the French establishment. Poor Ronnie Biggs, if only the Great Train Robbery had taken place in France he could have come back from Brazil ages ago with complete impunity! Apparently, selective amnesia is the "just" thing to have in cases like this, and it is the backwards Anglo-Saxons, this time in the form of les américains, who have the temerity to continue chasing the director when it should all be brushed under the carpet (although criticism of Anglo-Saxon legal systems is a little rich when it comes from the direction of a country that has only recently adopted the idea that one is innocent before being proved guilty).

"But there is surely more to it than that" you may ask, and you'd be right. Some French commentators have actually come out and said that such impunity is justified as Polanski is a great artist. But now have we reached the point where artistic talent trumps justice? And in any case I hear you ask, "Who is to decide what is art and if it is good or bad?" In the case of the French intelligentsia the answers are so obvious that they are self evident. A publicly pronounced decree of what is good or bad art by a senior member of the caste is quite naturally the right opinion as no sane person would have tastes or opinions to the contrary. But this argument could be extended further to any form of human endeavour. Not everybody puts art up on a pedestal and the importance of a profession is often relative to the regard in which it is held by the person making the assessment.

This reasoning alone would be absurd enough; i.e. to guarantee Polanski's liberté by denying the principle of égalité for all
before justice thanks to an absurdly misplaced sense of fraternité with a tortured and creative spirit. Unfortunately I believe the real reason is far more odious and is an example of an abuse of trust that all ruling classes in all types of society far too often perpetrate. Even if it is only in the subconscious of the French intelligentsia and politicians, rather than actively occupying their thoughts, the patronising notion that the little people are of a lesser stock, and it is they who must obey the rules and the noble principles on which the republic was founded on, runs rife in the heads of the French aristocracy. Sadly, in France it would appear justice is partial to the tastes and passing fads of the elites. I must have missed that noble concept when recently reading up on the principles of the revolution!