I've long been convinced that Brown's vision is along the lines you suggest.

I'm sure he thinks that prosperity, happiness and security can all be provided by the state and that people will happily work when the state lifts the burdens of freedom from people...

I don't know how to argue with this sort of person, I suppose the best we can do is point out how they are wrong and hope that observers of the debate will be persuaded by our arguments (its like arguing with Polly Toynbee).

I agree J.P.

Mr Brown does have a core philosophy - that government, at all levels from the local councils to the E.U. and world level, is there to help and guide people in all aspects of their lives.

The question is, does Mr Cameron share this core philosophy (for he certainly has no other) - or is Mr Cameron really the "man without a core" that Mr Parris talks of.

"So why are British politicians, even Scottish ones with a historical grudge against England, so keen to sign away such large chunks of influence and power? What, in short, is the point?"

If Matthew Parris is correct about Brown, and he has no vision for change, then signing power over to the EU makes perfect sense. Where a normal politician might be afraid that Brussels would thwart their reform agenda, Brown has nothing to worry about. The EU cannot stop him from doing nothing much in particular and spinning it as masterful management of British economy and society. Indeed, passing a treaty or Consitution or whatever it is now called might be a perfect substitute for actual achievement; it will act as both an imitation achievement, something he can say he did, and an excuse for whatever else he didn't do - "it's out of my hands, that's in the domain of te EU since the Treaty passed."

It is not a totally bleak vision: no doubt Brown believes people will be happy in such a country - I just cannot believe he is so malevolent up as to actually want people to be miserable

His presbyterian idea of happiness may be rather different from other people's though.

I think we're mistaken to try to find some profound meaning for why Broon would sign over power to the EU. Among the political class, the EU is just routinely believed to be the way forward, and inevitable. There is no debate about whether to construct the EUSSR, the only discussion is about the how. To leave is considered moonbatty. It's this kind of received wisdom that keeps our polity moving inexorably in the direction it does. There's nothing deeper than that.

Some of them, like that capering cretin David Millipede, probably "believe" in the EU in a somewhat shiny-eyed way. I don't think Broon does. He signed the Lisbon Treaty simply because anything else would be unthinkable. He wasn't even proud of doing it- he skulked in late and ashamed, which actually suggests a glimmer of decency in the man. But he is just a tool of the ruling class's consensus. Which is why somehow, the entire ruling class has to go.

Yes Ian, I believe you are right.
There really arnt any deep thinkers in our political parties anymore.
Mr Jazz, Kenneth Clarke, has often remarked that he never read a word of the Maastricht Treaty.
Except for a Red Box precis (let's face it he was probably down Ronnie Scotts, and didn't even read that!
They are so stupid as to not have twigged that REAL power has been stolen, drip by drip, from them.
They are happy with the ceremonial trappings and perks of belonging to the "Westmister Club" though, and pretend that this is governance or even democracy.
Um completely lost the plot, is the only conclusion I can come to, regarding our Political classes, of whatever stripe.

RAB

If "Ken" Clarke had then said "I did not read it because the European Court will interpret the treaty to give the E.U. yet more power, regardless of what the text says" I would have had some respect for him.

But, of course, Mr Clarke actually wanted the E.U. to have yet more power (whilst denying that is what he wanted).

I short the man is a liar (because he denies that he wants the E.U. to have yet more power - when every action of his over several decades shows that he does). And an enemy of his country - as he works to hand over power to the E.U.

As for Mr Brown:

As he sees the role of government as helping and guideing people in every aspect of their lives he, of course, generally supports the E.U. because that is also the ideology of this organization.

But is Mr Cameron any different?

I do not think so.

No Paul, neither do I.

That's why I will be voting UKIP

It is a conscience trip.

It's also probably futile

But what the hell

it's my ONLY choice!

Get rid of the EU
and get back to being a self governing country
That is my fervent hope!

His presbyterian idea of happiness may be rather different from other people's though.

You may be on to something there. A friend recently reminded me that his old Scottish granny, who lived to be over 100, would often remind him "We're not sent here to be happy you know", though I suppose if you had had to put up with the Scottish weather for a century it would bring anyone down. Her only small indulgence was snuff. I wonder what Brown's is?

I have an anti European Union M.P. RAB (and he is not a U.K.I.P. man).

Here is a test for a Conservative party candidate for Parliament.

"What powers will you insist on taking back from the E.U.".

And to guide against the "promise them anything" types.

"Now put it writing and sign it - so I can send it to the local newspaper".

If the Conservative candidate "makes his excuses and leaves" then they have passed judgement on themselves.