Here he is on September 29th, 2008:
Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord …
Here he is on November 29th, 2009:
I’d abolish the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby giving a greater boost to Europe’s economies than any number of bail-outs and stimulus packages. Scrap the directives that tell us what hours we can work, what vitamins we can buy …
The European Commission could then be reduced to a small secretariat, answering to national ministers. The European Court of Justice could be replaced by a tribunal that would arbitrate trade disputes. The European Parliament could be scrapped altogether.
You will, of course, have spotted the flaw in my plan.
Yes, we have spotted it and it doesn’t look good at first sight.
Now Dan, you more than anyone have seen what happened at the protest in the parliament, the way you were stood over and vilified, the way they handle their politics, the underhanded and secretive manner, the draconian laws at the ready, the regions in England ready to become operational.
And yet you suggest remaining inside and trying to change the very people we’re up against – changing their minds? Since when has the EU ever relinquished a power it had subsumed? Since when did it ever say to a British politician: “You’re right and we’ll restructure and reform within three years, just because you asked us to?
I’m at a loss how to react to this seeming naivety. It smacks of toeing the Cameron line, truth be told. Since when was it a wise policy, as mice, to remain within the cat’s reach and to plead with it not to eat us?
We need out of the EU because it is a ravening monster. We want a referendum on in or out. David Cameron has said we’re not going to get either and you, Dan, have said very little about which way you’re newly committed.
Would you please clarify where you stand on both the referendum and withdrawal from the EU?