David Cameron must be getting exhausted balancing on this tightrope over the European Union - so roll on the Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty when he can finally announce an active policy rather than this bizarre limbo situation he and William Hague have been in for months.
At his press conference just now, the Tory leader said he didn't want Tony Blair to be EU president. Fine - there has been a lot of concern about this prospect across Europe. But, although he says he's opposed to the position anyway because he is opposed to Lisbon, he suggests that, if there has to be one, it should be someone who is a coalition builder rather than an "all singing, all acting" person like Blair.
So - as someone put it to him during the press conference - he is actually saying he would rather have a president not from Britain but another EU country. You would think that the leader of a largely Eurosceptic party would prefer to have a Briton representing British interests than some federalist Eurocrat from Luxembourg, but no, the opposite is true.
Although he would deny it, one of Cameron's reasons seems to be because Blair is a Labour politician. This can be the only explanation. Yet Cameron doesn't seem to have formed in his mind a proper position on the issue of the Blair presidency - although it's not like he hasn't had months to prepare for it.
On a related subject, Cameron was asked whether he felt any discomfort about his new allies in the EU - specifically the Polish politician Michal Kaminski and the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party. Cameron's response was that this was merely party-political mischief making, and that all the claims about Kaminski etc "fell apart" under scrutiny. How can that be the case, when the claims have in fact been shown to be true - and by non-party political journalists - not least HERE and HERE? They have not fallen apart, far from it.
So, to sum up: to criticise the leader of his new party in the EU who has an anti-Semitic past is party political mischief-making, yet there is nothing party political in him opposing Tony Blair's bid to be EU president, even if it means backing an ultra-federalist instead? Not very consistent, is it?