The last 24 hours have been rather news-heavy, with the two big stories being Europe and this morning the Kelly Report.

I’ve written numerous pieces on expenses, so I will deal with that in due course, but suffice to say, I have been banging on about ending the Communications Allowance and having a rental allowance for so long, that I am feeling somewhat vindicated in the positions I took.

More fundamental and important is the question of Britain in Europe. I understand that David Cameron will be making an announcement at 4pm, so I deliberately wanted to make my opinions clear before then, rather than just writing out another reactive piece after the fact.

My first observation is that this issue, almost above all other recently, has resulted in media coverage that for all intents and purposes, treats the Conservative Party as the party in power. It is worth noting whilst reading this post, we are not in power and until the election is called, fought and (hopefully) won, we cannot change anything.

Secondly, as your prospective MP, it is important for me to make clear where I stand in Britain’s relationship with Europe.

I do not believe that Britain should pull out of the European Union. There is a caveat to that, but bear with me.

The 1m British subjects who live or work in the EU and the ability of Britain to draw in talent from Europe (particularly France, Spain and Germany) has been invaluable to the British Economy - free movement is a good thing.

I also love Europe. From Italian opera to French wine, Spanish tapas and German hospitality (yes, you heard that right), Europe is a treasure trove of art, culture and architecture that I for one, crave a fix of as often as time and funds allow. I have taken high tea in Vienna to the sounds of Mozart, partied in Prague, been to nudist beach (with my clothes on, you’ll be pleased to hear) in Malmo, spent hours in the Uffizi, and wandered through the Mezquita de Cordoba in awe of the site and seen the concrete jungle that was known as “Titograd” (now Podgorica) in Montenegro, a testimony to poor Communist planning.

Therefore I am not a “Eurosceptic”, but in fact a “Europhile”. It is the very differences in culture and language in such a relatively small land area that I love the most. I go abroad on leisure, because I want to be somewhere different to England.

It is to that end, that I dislike the European Union so much. I am a Conservative because I believe in small Government. I believe in abolishing regional assemblies in the UK, so why would I want another layer of Government muddying the waters?

The EU in my mind, does not celebrate the differences in our countries nor represent Europe, but rather tries to iron them out, through rules and regulations designed to create a monoculture in far too many areas of our lives.

The EU is a perfect example of a bureaucracy that has taken a life of its own and expanded beyond, far beyond, its original remit.

In a perfect world, my opinion is Britain would enjoy the benefits of a single common market - free trade, no visas. Britain could share some police data through Interpol. There would be chamber to empower individual countries within Europe to have a more powerful voice in trade negotiations with much bigger countries such as the USA and China. Perhaps even some consumer protection, but only in terms of quality control.

But that’s it. No employment laws, no common defence and foreign policy, no amalgamation of immigration and asylum laws. No directives on weights and measures, no CAP and no financial regulation from the EU.

If the other countries want to do this, that’s fine - I’ve never been particularly bothered by the idea of a “two-speed” Europe. The whole point of sovereignty is that each country should be allowed to freely negotiate in to, or out of, a Treaty or contract.

Students of Constitutional Law will know that it is fundamental that one Parliament should not be able to bind a future Parliament, yet that is what we have had since 1972.

But it’s not a perfect world. What I am proposing in my ideal scenario is a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship and that is where Lisbon makes it tricky for us.

The reality is, single currency aside, there seems to be relatively little room for individual countries to have this “two-speed” Europe. So the problem is now how to manage the realpolitik of our relationship with Europe.

This then leads me on to the third point - Lisbon. Unlike the previous Europe Minister, I read the 45-page summary of the Lisbon Treaty before the last European Elections. It may not be called a Constitution, it may have bits watered down, but it is as important a moment for this country as the Single European Act was in 1972, and that is no exaggeration.

The truth is, that Labour will go down in history as having denied the British people a vote on one of the most important constitutional changes to a country in living memory (certainly my lifetime). They twisted and perverted the argument to suit their purposes and insult the intelligence of the British people by saying it was no longer a Constitution, but in fact a Treaty.

This is nothing to do with the Conservatives - when offered a Parliamentary vote, we stuck to our manifesto pledge and voted for a referendum.

So now, the opposition is braying about David Cameron’s “cast iron” guarantee to hold a referendum. I’m sorry to get personal, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. The opposition wants us to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. If the contract is signed and implemented, then what use is the referendum?

As I mentioned earlier in this post, we are not the Government. The U-turn and betrayal sits solely at Labour’s door.

If and when we win the next election there is no point wasting taxpayers’ funds on a vote that we cannot legally act upon.

Therefore, my recommendation would be that David Cameron pledges that if he wins the next election, the Conservative Government will offer a menu of choices to the British public, not about Lisbon, but about how we attempt to have a long-term relationship with the EU.

This would be a way of giving the public a vote, but with the added benefit of ending the disenfranchisement of a the younger generation such as I, who have never had a say on our relationship, and the possibility of being able to deliver real change and make Parliament once again sovereign in affairs of the nation.