WHAT sort of people are governing this country? What sort of people aspire to govern it?

Two events last week revealed the answers to these questions.

The first was a "debate" at Brixham. It had been arranged by the local Liberal Democrats.

The panel consisted of Graham Watson MEP, supported by a prospective Parliamentary candidate and an ex-treasury economist.

Opposing this bevy of liberal Democrat talent was one member of the UK Independence Party, Trevor Colman. It hardly seemed an example of the British love of fair play.

As the "debate" proceeded it became clear the Lib Dem team had no answers to points raised by Mr Colman. He gave them every opportunity to justify their party's unequivocal acceptance of every facet of the EU, but they could only waffle and deny the truth of what he was saying.

The evening reached its peak when he pointed out that the interest rate set at the introduction of the single currency is irrevocable. Mr Watson and his two supporters all denied strenuously that it was so.

Then a member of the audience produced a copy of the treaty establishing the European Union, and pointed out the word "irrevocable" occurs twice in Article 1091(4) of the treaty of Maastricht (123.5 of the Consolidated Treaty) which lays down the rate at which the various currencies "shall be irrevocably fixed and at which irrevocably fixed rate the ECU shall be substituted for these currencies."

What sort of people stand for a parliament without learning the basic facts about the government concerned?

We all know MEPs only vote by pressing coloured buttons according to the instructions of their "group". Presumably the only requisites for the job are an ability to make out their expenses claim, and that they are not colour blind.

What about the Westminster MPs? Are they any better? Well, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee published a report entitled "Democracy and Accountability In The European Union And The RoleOf National Parliaments."

The most revealing part of this report was the suggestion the words "ever closer union" should be dropped from the treaties because they "do not think it appropriate to commit the peoples it covers to such a vague and open-ended process. Removing the phrase would help to reduce the perception the EU is engaged in a one-way process towards centralisation regardless of what citizens want."

Do we need any further proof that our politicians are deceiving us now just as they did in the 1970s?

A "process towards greater centralisation regardless of what the citizens want" has been EU policy since its inception, as politicians on the Continent have never denied.

But our House of Commons Committee would like to "reduce the perception" that we have of it.

In other words, the people must be led blind into the new soviet.

Is there no latter day Cromwell out there? No 21st century General Monk to drive these mealy-mouthed sycophants from their sinecures?

NINA COOPER

Hudson Road, Malmesbury