I don't think the Damian Green investigation will result in any prosecution.  However, that does not resolve the issue that he and Chris Galley are being threatened with prison and have already suffered some short period of arrest for something that is part of an MP holding the executive to account.

What surprises me is the extent to which the Labour Government have decided to wade in  behind the arrests.  It does demonstrate a failure to understand that MPs are acting on behalf of their constituents in raising concerns about government failures and that gagging MPs (as this does) has the effect of gagging their constituents.

I don't think it will be a matter for campaigning on the ground, because it is likely that this particular investigation will simply cease without prosecution.  However, the underlying constitutional question still needs resolution.

How would voting NO to Lisbon meet my criteria for any political decision, i.e. which choice makes my family 1) safer 2) happier 3) wealthier 4) freer 5) most benefits my small market town 6) benefits most people in the country and 7) cause least hardship to as few people as possible.

The main reason for saying ‘No’ to Lisbon is that it damages democratic accountability across a range of key issues.

The Lisbon Treaty, like its earlier guise as the EU Constitution, would significantly increase the EU’s power over foreign, asylum and immigration policy and criminal justice. It would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, whose ultimate effect would be that we would see more judge-made law from the European Court of Justice.

All this would end up meaning that more and more decisions that affect your and your family’s safety and freedom – the issues that you succinctly identify as among the basics for any voter’s rational political choices – would be made not by elected politicians here in Britain but at the EU level, partly by institutions that are not elected, like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

So whether voters here thought they were wise or foolish decisions they would be increasingly unable to do anything about it. And those of us who would like to be in a position to do what’s best for the British people, and be held to account for it, would find that our hands were bound by putting the EU in charge in areas where, I believe, action is best left to national governments.

The Treaty would also have an effect which would, over time, make all of us less wealthy: one of the EU’s great successes has been in enforcing free and fair competition across the EU.

That has made all of Europe’s economies more competitive and more productive and thus generate more wealth.

However, Lisbon downgrades the importance of free competition under EU law to allow for more national protectionism. Protectionism never works in the long term and this is a foolish move when globalisation means that we have not only to compete against our neighbours but earn our keep in a worldwide economy.

Saying ‘No’ to Europe would minimise Britain's economic clout, which is based on trade with Europe. Non-EU member states like Switzerland or Norway have to pay hundreds of millions of Euros to the EU for the right to trade. Their laws have to be in conformity with EU norms. The UK outside the EU would be without influence on the world stage and would be lose all the inward investment that comes here because we are in Europe.

I see no loss to the UK from having our ideas, vision and values incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty. The losers are the isolationists, protectionists, UKIP and Conservatives who want to detach the UK from having power and influence in European affairs