Although the idea of whoring oneself is generally used in an entirely sexual context, in a much broader sense it could just as easily refer to the idea of an individual, or a group of individuals, selling their bodies, their integrity, their rights, their principles, or indeed their very freedoms, for a given price. It doesn't necessarily have to be a fair price, just one that the individual person, or the particular group of people are content to sell their bodies, integrity, rights, principles or freedoms for, while still being able to convince themselves that they've somehow still got the best end of the bargain.
With David Cameron and his Conservative colleagues planning to start the difficult journey to our long promised EU Referendum in 2017, so the cheapest possible price tag for the right sort of outcome is currently being decided by the various parties. It's important to note here, that even though the British people will ultimately make the final decision in 2017, they will play little or no part in setting the price of our continued EU membership, or not, as the case may be, as they themselves are simply the prize that will be awarded to the eventual winner of the ongoing European argument.
On the one side of the campaign we have the very much larger party of "IN", which includes the majority of the political establishment, large numbers of heavily invested publicly and privately owned businesses, much of the mainstream media, and the European Union itself, which will be ably supported by any number of foreign leaders, dignitaries and its army of well paid, highly motivated political advisers.
On the other side of the argument will be the much smaller "OUT" party, a rag-tag army of Eurosceptics drawn from the entire political spectrum, who have been variously described as fruitcakes, loons, gadflies and Little Englanders, such is their resistance to Britain's continued membership of the European Union.
And whilst they have significant support for their cause amongst the general population, small business community and even some parts of the press, it is important to recognise that they will almost certainly be outspent, out-briefed, out-campaigned, out-published and even completely out-propagandised by the much wealthier, much more influential and the much scarier prospects that will inevitably be offered up by the political establishment's entire "IN" campaign.
However, regardless of the eventual outcome of the referendum in 2016 or 2017, we can all probably be certain of one thing and that is the arguments over our membership of the EU will continue to rage on and on irrespective of how the country actually votes in the national ballot. If the UK decides to remain "IN", then it is almost inevitable that the EU will try to extend its authority even further, giving the "OUT" campaign grounds for demanding yet another vote at some point in the future. If the "OUT" campaign were to win, then every single social, economic or trading setback would be sufficient for the "IN" campaign to demand that a future government reconsider Britain's decision to leave. And of course, these take no account of any dormant Scottish, Welsh or N Irish demands that they be exempt from any subsequent "OUT" vote, as the SNP and Plaid Cymru have already made plain.
Such potential future difficulties aside though, ultimately it seems likely that the campaign will continue to be dominated by a variety of discussions, claims and assertions relating to the usual range of subjects including, immigration, trade, governance, national sovereignty, the environment, finance, economic planning, education, welfare, transport, energy, defence, foreign affairs, consumer rights and legal powers, exactly the same old thorny issues that have continued to be bones of contention for the past forty years.
Putting these individual areas of competency to one side however, at the end of the day, only one single overriding issue really matters; and that is the question of primacy, the ability of each national parliament to govern for and on behalf of its own national electorate, as opposed to it having to defer to what is fundamentally a foreign and unelected power, as is the case now with the European Union. First and foremost Britain should be ruled by elected Britons, Poland should be ruled by elected Poles, Spain should be ruled by elected Spaniards, France should be ruled by elected Frenchmen, etc. Whatever the member state, it should be primarily ruled or governed by its own elected nationals, not by a largely unelected, unrepresentative foreign parliament in Brussels or Strasbourg that has authorised itself to usurp the will of national leaders, government ministers or elected representatives.
Were the EU or its European Parliament a congress of equals then perhaps that wouldn't be quite so bad, but clearly that isn't the case at all. Neighbour favours neighbour, economic muscle provides additional influence, individual political and economic influence dictates overall Union strategy and planning. Is Chancellor Merkel's political influence equal to, or greater than any other European leader's political influence; and if so why, in a congress of supposed equals?
Rather than being any great step forward in democratising European nations, wouldn't it be truer to say that the EU is little better than a political, social and economic version of the Eurovision Song Contest, but without the laughs. At least in that debased competition there is an implicit understanding and acceptance that the entire thing is a parody, a spoof of the original Europe wide singing competition, but one where it's clearly understood that nobody is really taking it seriously; and that it's designed to entertain, to irritate, to repay regional favours, but definitely not to be taken too seriously.
Now, where Britain might be content to "whore" its reputation in a European Song Contest and as a result humble its international standing in terms of its singers and songwriters, or obvious lack thereof, that is a whole lot different to "whoring" its long and hard won reputation in terms of border controls, defence capabilities, judicial rigour, international trade, fiscal planning, economic competence, international relations, diplomatic leverage, manufacturing excellence and everything else that goes into making a seriously successful, world leading sovereign state.
The very idea that Britain has been improved or enhanced through its membership of the European Union is a complete nonsense, unless of course the act of shackling itself to a diminishing political entity, whilst at the same time preventing ourselves from making individual trade deals with any number of newly emerging markets, is a sign of success? Historically, Britain built its vast empire, its international reputation, its diplomatic networks and its economic success on the back of its ability and willingness to trade with anyone, anywhere in the world; and it certainly didn't shackle itself exclusively to a stagnant European continent where most of its immediate competitors were based.
Just as it's commonly the case that many of those who willingly, or unwillingly commit themselves to a life of "whoring" in a purely sexual context, find their own self respect is one of the first things to suffer, as a result of their lifestyle, so too one wonders if a entire nation can see their national self-esteem diminish, as a result of seeing their traditional cultural and social values handed away to a foreign power? Few of our national competencies remain completely untouched by the EU's parliament sitting in Brussels and Strasbourg, be it our environment, our courts, our roads, our agricultural sector, our energy production, our fishing grounds, our industries, or even our ability to control our own national borders.
However, having now been a "whore" to Europe's demands for the past forty years, it remains to be seen whether or not our increasingly debased Britain is strong enough, or indeed brave enough to finally walk away from its European Union shackles and return to being the sort of global trading nation that it successfully managed to be for hundreds of years before the EU was even first imagined by its continental creators.
And in closing this, it is perhaps worth making the final point that even the worst sort of "whore" expects to make money from selling their body, their reputation or their freedom; and yet Britain as a nation, doesn't just give them away for free, but it actually pays the EU billions of pounds to regularly f*ck us over each and ever year, at the rate of £55 million per day; and that being the case, not only have we become whores of the great European project, but we've become incredibly cheap ones at the same time.