Quite right

I do like this analysis.

“When Farage wrote on politics.co.uk that Ganley is “very much a supporter of the [EU] project, just wishing to change very slightly the direction it’s going in”, he’s not lying. Libertas is essentially an EU democratisation project. Ganley’s comments say it all: Europe is “arguably the most successful peace process in the history of the world” but “wouldn’t it be better if we could ensure the EU was democratic, was accountable?”

It’s a legitimate viewpoint, and there’s no reason for the debate to be polarised between those calling for total withdrawal and those who want the UK right in the middle of things. The Lisbon treaty was formulated to streamline decision making, and help the EU function as a governing body. You only have to look at its fractious reaction to the global downturn to see why officials might be keen for this to happen sooner rather than later. But streamlined decision making is sometimes just another word for lack of democratic input, and there are strong arguments for saying the Lisbon treaty would further bypass already weak democratic structures in the Union.

UKIP is a far simpler animal, calling for total withdrawal. It wants Britain’s membership of the EU to be replaced by a host of trade and cooperation agreements. It hoovers up a great deal of support by sticking to this simple line. It’s described as unpractical, but it reflects its members’ interests in a way most other parties consistently fail to. They are reliable, and that means a great deal in the murky and emotive world of Anglo-EU relations.

It’s a lesson the Tories could learn from. Anyone with a decent idea of the Conservative position on Europe must have access to information no-one else does.”