TORY Euro-sceptics are becoming increasingly suspicious that the Prime Minister is not fighting as hard as they'd like in pushing for reforms in Britain's relationship with the EU top brass, leading to possible UK withdrawal.

They see him as a hardened Europhile who is not putting his heart and soul into this campaign, and that he will claim a non-existent victory before the 2017 referendum to decide whether Britain stays in or not.

Cameron has now submitted his "demands" to senior and, in many cases obdurate, figures in Brussels, who do not surrender easily to requests from Member States, so great is their self-acquired autonomy.

And so far, this "menu" of reforms has been damningly dismissed by some senior members of his own party as variously "feeble", "inadequate" and even "meaningless".

In short, they believe he will do everything in his power, without admitting it, to staying in the EU regardless of the reaction of Brussels to his demands.

Tory eurosceptics want to see a list of far tougher demands from Cameron than the list he has provided. And people like Lord (Nigel) Lawson, a former Tory Chancellor, believe that even if Brussels concedes anything to Cameron, it will not make a blind bit of difference to what they regard as the UK's subservience to Brussels.

Lawson, and those of like opinions, want to see Britain restored to sovereign statehood.

But they fear that Cameron's ineffective - and possibly deliberately so - campaign will have no effect whatsoever on those virtually immoveable, flint-faced eurocrats. In short they have no faith in the Prime Minister's actions.

THE unspeakable atrocities in Paris last week have rightly dominated the news bulletins and the headlines ever since. It is beginning to look like an intractable problem.

But there is one area that should be looked at much more closely - and quickly.

How many would-be terrorists are creeping into Europe under the cloak of the trails of migrants who are abandoning the Middle East? Much tougher action should be taken, especially when this very real risk exists.

One small mercy from these terrible events: just imagine the extra carnage that would have ensued if the would-be bomber had not been refused entry into the football stadium where France was playing Germany that evening.

Instead, he blew himself up outside the stadium. Good riddance.

WHEN Ministers actually say something which is pure common sense, and even blindingly obvious to most of us, they invariably and inexplicably get it in the neck from their political opponents.

Take the case of Tracey Crouch, the Sports Minister, who said that those who find themselves hit by cuts in tax credits, should consider abandoning some of the frills in their life, such as, for instance, pay TV.

No sooner were the words out of her mouth than her political enemies pounced on her like starving tigers. They ludicrously accused her of insulting the poor.

As Sir Bernard Ingham would have said: bunkum and balderdash.

And in response to these strictures, what did Crouch do? She apologised!

I cannot fathom why she should have apologised for simply saying that those families which might be finding it hard to make ends meet, should (like the Government itself) think of areas where they could cut their expenses without hardship.

Apologise, indeed! She should have stood up to her critics and told them what rot they were talking. Advising people on how they can avoid hardship, does not sound to me like insulting anybody.

Fleet Street is often accused of exaggeration. But it is not them, but the politicians, who are guilty of this offence.

A FEW days ago, students were marching up and down the streets of central London, brandishing placards demanding "free" education. Well, as Margaret Thatcher might have said: "There is no such thing as free education."

How do these students hope to achieve their demands? By asking the tutors and lecturers to give their services free?

Of course not.

What they mean by "free" education is that other people, those who, for instance, tried to get advanced education and failed, or those who are simply not interested in further education for themselves, to fork out on their behalf - people like you and me, the hard-pressed British taxpayer.

In short, they want others to pay for what most people consider a privilege: higher education, but don't have the guts to say so.

It would be more honest if they rewrote their banners to say what they really mean,

OLIVER Letwin, the diminutive Cabinet Office Minister (who he? you might well ask) is to be hauled before the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Administration Committee this week, and not before time, to explain to MPs his actions over the charity Kids Company

They will want to know - and so do we all - why he gave it huge sums of money even though senior civil servants opposed it. Thanks to Letwin, £3 million was handed over in July, only three months after his department had given it £4.3 million.

I trust he has a good explanation ready.