THE ROBBING BANKS

This morning's decision by the new UK Supreme court to block the Ofiice of Fair Trading's attmpts to make the Bank's pay back their usurious penalty charges is an absolute disgrace.

One of the banks' central claim was that it would result in a deluge of cases. This is errant nonsense, if you rip-off millions of customers, you have to recompense millions of customers. It's as if the banks' are claiming that since we deal with millions of people we can't be expected to deal with them individually (of course, they always claim in their marketing bumpf that, that is precisely what they do). A defence based on size is an affront to natural justice

What's worse in some banks e.g. Barclays, staff were instructed months ago to calculate how much customers who had challenged the banks over their overdraft penalty charges would have to be refunded.

The craven Supreme Court has acted in its best class interest.

BARROSO WANTS NEW COMMISSION TO FOCUS ON SOCIAL ISSUES

 The next European Commission should be in place by the end of January, Jose Manuel Barroso said on Tuesday. The last of 27 nominees for Commission posts, one from each EU member state, was proposed on Tuesday, meaning consultations now begin on how to distribute the portfolios in the body that initiates laws and implements decisions across the EU.

 "We should already have a new Commission by now and we have not. I hope to have it at the end of January," Barroso told MEPs at a meeting in Strasbourg. Barroso said a focus of the next Commission, and the European Union as a whole, would be the fallout from the economic and financial crisis on the EU's 500 million people.

"We have a situation of urgency regarding social matters, mainly because of rising unemployment," he said. "There is a risk of a decade of low growth and high unemployment and that will put severe strain on our social models and our living standards, that's why I really think it is important to work on the matters of social inclusion."

"Just today I received the final name of the 27 members' designated commissioners, only today. That is why we are in fact going a little bit late," he said.

Some Commission portfolios, particularly competition, internal markets, monetary affairs and trade, have broad powers and are highly sought after by member states. France is angling to take on the internal markets portfolio in the next Commission, which could give it a say in regulating financial services. Germany is interested in the industry, trade or competition portfolios, diplomats says.

Under EU rules, the Commission should have been formed by the beginning of November. But a series of delays, including the need to ratify the Lisbon reform treaty that streamlines EU decision-making, has caused the process to be pushed back. Commissioners serve for a five-year term and can build up widespread influence in that time. The competition commissioner, for example, has oversight on mergers and acquisitions and is responsible for enforcing anti-trust regulations.

MORE WOMEN COMMISSIONERS Outgoing Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, from the Netherlands, developed a reputation as a tough enforcer of rules on state aid and as a champion of consumer rights. Kroes has been put forward again by the Netherlands to serve in the next Commission, although it is unlikely that she will get the competition portfolio again. "I've heard that Barroso has decided no one will continue in their current position and that people will rotate," Dutch Finance Minister Wouter Bos told Dutch TV on Tuesday.

Barroso had said he would like to have more women in the Commission. Given nominations so far, he could have nine women in the next Commission, up from eight in the outgoing one. Barroso, who won support from the European Parliament for a second five-year term as president in September, is expected to announce his Commission line up in the coming days.

 The European Parliament will then invite nominees for hearings, most likely during January, after which a vote will be taken on the full Commission. Parliamentarians do not expect that process to be completed before Feb. 1.

U.K. POLICE HAS ALREADY OBTAINED DNA OF 75 % OF ALL BLACK YOUTH

  As many as three quarters of all black men in Britain aged 18-35 have had their genetic information placed on the country's massive DNA database, a group charged with reviewing officials' use of genetic technology said Tuesday. The Human Genetics Commission _an independent government advisory board made up of scientists, lawyers and other experts_ said young black males were «very highly over-represented» on the DNA register and could be unfairly stigmatized by being placed on the database in such large numbers.

            «My breath was slightly taken away by that figure,» commission chairman Jonathan Montgomery said in a telephone interview. «We know young black men are much more likely to be arrested than others, and putting them on the DNA database magnifies the impact,» he said. «If the arrest pattern is discriminatory, this makes it even worse.» Britain has one of the largest DNA databases in the world, with profiles of over 5 million people, or 8 percent of the population. Seven percent of those on the register are black, according to government figures _even though only about 2 percent of the population of England and Wales is black.

            Montgomery said his commission's figures came from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a government body that has estimated that about a third of all black men _and 75 percent of all young black men_ are on the national register. Last month, security minister Alan West acknowledged that the overrepresentation of blacks and other minorities on the database was worrying, but said that «our initial look at this makes us feel that this is to do with the fact that in the criminal justice system as a whole there is overrepresentation of black people.»

           Montgomery's commission said police should stop taking DNA samples from every person who is arrested, arguing that decisions on whether DNA samples are taken should be based in part on the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances of the arrest. British officials had planned to keep genetic information of innocent people indefinitely, but the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously last year that keeping such information on innocent people forever violated their right to privacy, forcing the British government to modify its practices. New guidelines announced earlier this month call for the DNA profiles of most innocent people be purged from the system after six years, although people suspected of terrorist offenses would be excluded from this rule.

POLICE DISMISS CRITICISM  British officials indicated they are not likely to be swayed by the advisory board's criticism of the DNA program. «DNA samples are taken on arrest for recordable offenses carrying a prison sentence,» a spokeswoman for Britain's Home Office said. «The government is clear that this is the right threshold for taking and retaining DNA.» The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy, said the DNA database is a «vital crime fighting tool.»

EU URGES US AND CHINA TO DELIVER ON CLIMATE CHANGE

          The European Union on Monday urged the U.S. and China to deliver greenhouse gas emissions targets at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen, saying their delays were hindering global efforts to curb climate change.

Two weeks before the U.N.-sponsored conference, the world's largest polluters have not put any firm bids on the table. «That strategy is untenable,» Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt wrote. «It provides no global answer. It does not solve the threat of climate change.»

The U.S. still has not committed to figures for its own emissions reductions or financing, with negotiators waiting until Congress completes domestic climate legislation. Chinese President Hu Jintao said last week that nations would each do what they were able _referring to China's view that developing nations should not be required to make cuts.

China has promised to curb emissions but has not said by how much. World leaders are no longer expected to reach a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, and are aiming instead for a political deal that includes commitments on reducing emissions and financing for developing countries to deal with climate change. «We still expect all content to be agreed upon at Copenhagen,» Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said in Brussels, where EU environment ministers were meeting to hammer out their final position for the talks.

A panel of U.N. scientists has recommended that developed countries make cuts of between 25 % and 40 % of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The EU aims for deeper cuts than most other industrialized nations _pledging to move from a 20 % cut below 1990 levels to 30 % if others follow suit. By 2050, it wants to eliminate most emissions, with a target of up to 95 %.

The U.S. is considering a far lower cut _17 % from 2005 levels or about 3.5 % from 1990. Japan has promised a 25 % reduction from 1990 levels. Per head, Americans account for twice the emissions compared to Europeans and Japanese.

While the EU sees itself as a trailblazer, it has delayed promising cash to poorer nations to help them tackle global warming. EU leaders have pledged to pay their «fair share» into an annual global fund but gave no amount. They estimated that €100 billion ($148 billion) a year is needed and that half should come from governments. The EU's executive suggested that the 27 EU governments should give up to €15 billion ($22 billion) a year from 2013 to 2020.

NOT WELL KNOWN; BUT DON'T UNDERESTIMATE VON ROMPUY OR ASHTON

           European Union leaders have named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and Britain's Catherine Ashton as EU president and foreign policy chief. Such a deal is a vote for consensus builders over big-name personalities and means that while European decision-making may become more streamlined, the EU will still struggle to punch its weight in international diplomacy.

          Van Rompuy, virtually unknown on the world stage, is regarded as a sharp and efficient operator in his home country. He has been prime minister for only a year, but in that time has won high praise for bringing Belgium's long-divided Flemish and French-speaking communities closer together. In backing him for president of the EU Council, a move largely driven by France and Germany, EU leaders are asking Van Rompuy, a 62-year-old consummate politician fond of writing Haiku poems, to serve as a business-like chairman of the union.

           "It's not a glamour team," an EU diplomat said. He can be expected to run a tight, well-organised agenda, and his behind-the-scenes style should help find consensus among the EU's 27 sometimes fractious states.

EFFICIENCY WINS OVER BIG NAME 

           The choice of Ashton to serve as high representative for foreign affairs is also a nod towards understated efficiency rather than the influence of a high-profile, big-name diplomat. Ashton, who has spent the past year serving as the EU's trade commissioner, has relatively little experience in foreign affairs. But she picked up her trade brief quickly and has earned a reputation as being an astute negotiator. "It is not a bad choice," said Hugo Brady, an analyst at the Centre for European Reform think tank, referring to the pairing. "Ashton does not have very strong foreign policy credentials, but she is a very capable person," he said.
 KISSINGER VERSUS ERASMUS

          From the outside, however, particularly from the point of view of Washington, Beijing or New Delhi, the EU's choices are likely to raise some question marks. If U.S. President Barack Obama or Chinese President Hu Jintao wants to "speak to Europe", they will now be expected to call Van Rompuy or Ashton. Instead Jose Manuel Barroso is likely to be a more high-profile touchstone for foreign leaders. To that extent, the choices of Ashton and Van Rompuy seem to go against one concept of the jobs, which was to increase the bloc's global clout as well as streamlining decision-making. But with 27 countries in the union, what is needed before the EU can become a major player in world affairs is a set of common foreign and security policy objectives.

          To get those, negotiation, debate and compromise are needed first. Van Rompuy and Ashton, 53, will be instrumental in trying to achieve that, and the EU's leaders will know they have two skilled and efficient politicians working on the issues.

SISTERS ARE DOING IT FOR THEMSELVES

 It can be expected that the US Democrat Secretary of State Hilary Clinton will find it very easy to strike up a warm working relationship with the Labour Party's Cathy Ashton with both sharing similar views on a multitude of subjects.

ASHTON THE QUIET FIXER

           "(Ashton)'s never been a foreign secretary. However, she has been in the international trade business for quite some time and has quite of lot of experience in multilateral affairs," said Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre. In her time as trade commissioner, Ashton has been key in bringing the United States and India together to kickstart the Doha round of world trade talks. She has also brokered the EU's largest foreign trade agreement, a 100 billion euro ($150 billion) pact with South Korea, and solved two of the EU's most intractable trade disputes. With international diplomacy closely tied to trade, and the EU constituting the world's largest economic trading zone, Ashton appears to be a choice that reflects the EU's desire to tie its economic strength closely to diplomatic influence.

In part of the quid pro quo of these selections FRANCE’S DE BOISSEU GETS COUNCIL SECRETARIAT and the German candidate (yet to selected by Germany) for the European Central Bank is now a shoe-in

UK COULD HAVE LOST AN EU COMMISSIONER

Marjorie Smith

            One thing about the new woman or man who will become the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, that is little known, is that they will take up their Member State's representation in the European Commission.

            That's because the new post-holder will not only be a member of the 27 seat college of Commissioners but also be a Vice-President of the European Commission. The new post-holder will also report to the Council of Ministers General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC). The GAERC meets monthly and is made up of the 27 Foreign Affairs Ministers from each of the Member States.

            For example, if David Milliband had become the new foreign policy chief, then the UK would not have kept its normal Commissioner post. The same applies to anybody who takes up the post, they will forego their Member state's normal position within the Commission.

          One other aspect of the new post of EU Foreign Minister that is little mentioned is that the position itself is an institutional hybrid. The post involves loyalties to both the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, with the Minister being a Vive-President in the Commission and directly reporting to the 27 EU Member States'Foreign Ministers in the Council of Minsiters. Up until now, there has been no such institutional hybridisation in the EU. It will be intersting to see how this develops.

            Consequently, since the post involves such divided loyalties between the Council and the Commission, anybody who takes up the post would be well-advised to have their offices in neither in the Council of Ministers' Justus Lipsus building nor in the Commission's landmark Berlaymont building.

WHY THE SELECTION OF AN EU PRESIDENT ISN'T WHAT IT SEEMS

Marjorie Smith

           The EU's new President (as constituted under the Lisbon treaty) is due to be selected in Brussels  Thursday evening or more likely Friday morning. What will be a far less powerful position than many imagine, will be the subject of intense horse-trading and brinkmanship by the 27 Member States.

           Whoever becomes EU President will find themselves in an institutional position more akin to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a constitutional position more akin to the President of Germany or Ireland and in a ceremonial position more akin to the Secretary-General of the UN. In other words and in many respects, a sheep in wolf's clothing.

           Like any multilateral international negotiations, the process is complicated whenever there is either no clear candidate or that the selection process is semi-informal and unstructured. Both apply in this case. Calls for the President to be elected abound at the present time, yet for many, such a course of action would undermine the very purpose of the EU.

           This is because many people seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the EU President will be selected and why having a direct election would be problematic.

            The accusations in the right-wing press are flying thick and fast: Just like the Soviet Union! Decisions made behind closed doors! Typically secretive! Anti-democratic! Etc. Etc. These are just some of the ignorant headlines being bandied about by many and not just by eurosceptics.

            The basic premise to remember is that the EU is a club of 27 members, it's as simple as that. The members are the individual Member States, The commission is the staff and the European Parliament is the management committee.

            It's up to the 27 who they appoint and if there isn't going to be consensus, then a democratic vote will be taken amongst the 27. The vote will be by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) with the larger Member States having a bigger weighting roughly according to population size. Seems eminently democratic to me.

            For those, who claim it is anti-democratic, what exact element of democracy would they like to see? If the President of the EU, as constituted according to the Lisbon Treaty was to be directly elected, then he/she would receive a democratic mandate that would serve as a competing centre of power to the Member States. It would also serve as a competing power to the directly elected European Parliament.

            Eurosceptics would end up with a new powerful trans-national European institution with a direct fully democratic legitimacy that would not be dependent on any Member State for their power base. Is that what they want when they accuse the present system of being anti-democratic? Of course not, they just want a stick to beat the EU with and any stick will do.

            The other main criticism is that nobody knows who is standing, just that the post should be filled by a person who preferably currently holds high political office or has done so recently. Since this is a new post, there is no recognised system of choosing a President, hence people currently treading warily. Secondly, it's inevitable that current Prime Ministers have not formally applied for the position, because it would be political suicide at home, if their names where formally put forward and they didn't win.

           The actual position is far less powerful, or influential, than many suppose. Unlike in France or the USA, the role of EU President will be one of coordination, representation and chairing not one of leadership, policy formulation and carrying out a democratic mandate for change. The position of EU Foreign Minister is a much more influential role and being an institutional hybrid, has far more scope to be a player.

            If those who criticise the process have constructive alternatives to what is currently happening would like to make their suggestions known that would be most welcome. But, as ever, those who are most vociferous about the EU are usually the most ignorant about it as well.

EU STILL AT NOMINATIONS IMPASSE AHEAD OF THURSDAY SUMMIT

A summit this week to appoint an EU president and foreign affairs chief looks set to run over schedule with no clear candidates agreed despite long consultations, EU officials said on Tuesday.

Sweden has called a summit in Brussels on Thursday to decide who fills the jobs. But midway through a second round of discussions with EU leaders, no unanimous names have emerged. Herman Van Rompuy is the frontrunner to become president, but diplomats say no agreement has been reached on the foreign policy job and some countries want a more established statesmen than Van Rompuy as president. "There is still no clear candidate for either job," an EU diplomat with knowledge of the negotiations said.

Fredrik Reinfeldt had hoped unanimous candidates for both jobs would emerge from talks with leaders and would be confirmed at a dinner. The summit now looks likely to run into the early hours of Friday and beyond.

FRIDAY BREAKFAST ORDERED  

Sweden has even taken the precaution of ordering breakfast for the heads of state and government attending the summit in case the dinner ends without a result, diplomats say. "If there is no agreement -and currently many things seem to be blocked- then it must continue on Friday or probably it will have to be postponed," Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger told reporters on Monday.

At least six names have repeatedly been mentioned by diplomats and analysts for the president's job, and a similar number for the role of high representative, but the list seems to grow rather than shorten. The EU is expected to opt for a centre-right president and a centre-left foreign affairs chief. There is no firm favourite for the latter role, but Italians Massimo D'Alema and Giuliano Amato are increasingly mentioned as candidates. Despite calls for a women to have one of the top jobs, no women are thought to be among the front-runners.

BRITAIN FACES BEING SIDELINED

 EU diplomats say Britain is still pushing for Tony Blair to be president but many other states are against. Britain's insistence on Blair is creating an impasse, the diplomat familiar with the process said, and Britain could find itself sidelined if the decision ultimately went to a vote. "Any decision without the UK's backing would not be good PR for the EU, but the Swedes, France, Germany and others may be willing to go for a vote without the British," he said.

EU DEADLOCKED BEFORE THURSDAY SUMMIT

 Divisions among member states are threatening the European Union's chances of agreeing on a president and foreign affairs chief at a summit this week, EU officials said on Monday. Herman Van Rompuy is the frontrunner to become president, but diplomats say no agreement has been reached on the foreign policy job and some countries want a more established statesman than Van Rompuy as the figurehead leader. "It is crucial that there are talks until Thursday and that there is a decision on Thursday -- or it will be postponed," Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger told reporters at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels. "If there is no agreement -and currently many things seem to be blocked- then it must continue on Friday or probably it will have to be postponed."

HEADING FOR A VOTE 

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb said he thought it unlikely that EU heads of state and government would fail to agree on the two names on or before Thursday. But, like other EU officials, he made clear it was proving difficult to reach a consensus on the candidates and it might come down to a vote, although the bloc hoped to avoid this. "My hope is that we don't have to go for an actual vote, that a compromise will have been found at the end," he said. "The worst-case scenario would be that we would not be able to nominate anyone on Thursday night."

FINDING A BALANCE

µ The EU is expected to opt for a centre-right president and a centre-left foreign affairs chief but there is no firm favourite for the latter role, although Italians Massimo D'Alema and Giuliano Amato are increasingly mentioned as candidates. Despite calls for a woman to have one of the top jobs, no women are thought to be among the frontrunners EU diplomats say Britain is still pushing for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be president but many other states want a relatively low-profile leader who they believe would be better able to secure a consensus at meetings. [ID:nLT673586] "Blair is by far the biggest problem," an EU diplomat said. The envoy said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not budge on the issue of his predecessor becoming EU president.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said he saw no reason why agreement would not be reached this week and added: "Now is the time for a decision. We are at a defining period for Europe's global role in a number of ways." He said implementing the Lisbon treaty was vital to the EU's role on the world stage, where its leaders say it faces irrelevance if does not reform to match the rise of emerging powers such as China following the global economic crisis. "But we have quite a number of difficult decisions when it comes to turning Lisbon into reality and the sum of those decisions will be defining for the role Europe can play on the global stage in the years ahead," Bildt said.

THE PCC TO REGULATE BLOGS? - YOU MUST BE JOKING

Ian Burrell, who edits The Independent's Media Pages, has a very disturbing blogpost about the ambition of the Press Complaints Commission to regulate blogs.  Baroness Buscombe, the new chairman  PCC,seems to want to extend her territorial claims without realising that she doesn't even control the press. The PCC's pathetic idea that it regulates the press is bad joke. She is merely a fig leaf for the lower end of the UK printed media and the sooner she realises that the better.

She wants to examine the possibility that the PCC's role should be extended to cover the blogosphere, which is becoming an increasing source of breaking news and boasts some of the media's highest-profile commentators, such as the political bloggers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes. Do readers of such sites, and people mentioned on them, deserve the same rights of redress that the PCC offers in respect of newspapers and their sites?

"Some of the bloggers are now creating their own ecosystems which are quite sophisticated," Baroness Buscombe told me. "Is the reader of those blogs assuming that it's news, and is [the blogosphere] the new newspapers? It's a very interesting area and quite challenging."

She said that after a review of the governance structures of the PCC, she would want the organisation to "consider" whether it should seek to extend its remit to the blogosphere, a process that would involve discussion with the press industry, the public and bloggers (who would presumably have to volunteer to come beneath the PCC's umbrella).

The PCC regulates the press online as well as in print, and its remit also extends to the Sun's radio operation, SunTalk.

Blogging, with its tradition of being free and unregulated, sees itself as very different. But is it really?

The PPC is a wholly-'owned' puppet of the large-seling tabloids, let it continue with its traditional role of defending its own nefarious backers and not pollute the blogosphere.

SWEDES STILL HANGING ON THE TELEPHONE TO DISCARD UNWANTED EU CANDIDATES

           The Swedish Prime Minster Fredrik Reinfeldt has been tasked (because Sweden curently runs the EU Presidency) with leading negotiations to appoint the bloc's first-ever permanent president ahead of a summit on November 19. And officials say that Reinfeldt and his staff have been rarely off the phone in recent days as they have called every national leader in the EU to ask who their choice would be. "Every one of the 27 member states should be able to have their say ... Just to reach all the presidents and prime ministers in 26 countries is a task, I can tell you," a weary-looking Reinfeldt said this week.

            For much of this week, Reinfeldt has been cloistered in his office above the quays of Stockholm, phoning colleague after colleague while his aides called around Europe's capitals to set up more talks. "When you actually speak with all 26 colleagues you have more names than jobs to offer," Reinfeldt lamented. According to EU sources, the hours of calls produced "about 10 names" for each of the top posts.

           Finding a way to reduce those lists to just two or three names before the summit looks likely to take a lot more telephone time. "We have the main balance between left and right in politics, but as you know, that's not the only balance we're talking about - we talk about small, medium and big member states, we talk about north and south, west and east, we talk about gender issues," Reinfeldt said. Britain is openly 'pushing' for Tony Blair. Latvia is lobbying on behalf of Vaira Vike-Freiberga, while Italy is backing Massimo D'Alema.

            But beyond that circle, governments have maintained a stony silence on the key question of which names are on the list. "We can't make any statements on this issue -there are some ideas in (our capital), but there is a total embargo on that information," one diplomat from a small Eastern European state said on Thursday. Most candidates are reluctant to reveal themselves because to make a formal bid without overwhelming support would mean "sending the signal to your people that I'm on the way to another job but on Monday I'm back again and I didn't get it but I still love you," Reinfeldt said.

            The pressure from the media to publish the list is now so great that the Swedish premier might even be looking forward to spending the next few days alone in his office with a hot telephone. But with just days to go before Thursday's showdown, and key events such as a summit with Russia set to take up much of his available time, he must be wondering how far telephone democracy will take him -and how much will have to be left to the summit itself. "I could foresee that I might need to work with it until we arrive at our council (summit) dinner," he said.

EU PRESIDENCY FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO REACH NOMINATIONS CONSENSUS

          There is still no consensus on who should become the European Union's first full-time president and its new foreign policy supremo, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said Wednesday.

          Eight days before the bloc's leaders were to meet at a special summit in Brussels to pick the candidates for the two posts, Reinfeldt told reporters: "I have more names than jobs to offer." Earlier Wednesday, Reinfeldt's office announced that a special meeting of EU heads of state and government would be held in Brussels on November 19. Reinfeldt said the "early dinner" summit would be tasked with selecting the most suitable candidates for the two posts being created by the Lisbon Treaty, which is due to come into force on December 1.

          As the current holder of the EU's rotating presidency, it is his task to draw up a final shortlist of candidates to present to national leaders. However, the Swedish premier conceded that he was having a tough time getting any agreement. "It will take time to get everything in place," Reinfeldt said, noting that he had spent the better part of two days to hold a first round of consultations with fellow leaders.

           Aside from the fact that different member states were proposing different names, Reinfeldt said he was finding it particularly difficult to find a balance between the political left and right and the often conflicting interests of small- and medium-sized countries, northerners and southerners, those in the East and those in the West. Calls for more women to be appointed to the bloc's top posts, as well as the fact that some countries were proposing more than one name, compounded to his problems, a frustrated Reinfeldt said.

20 CANDIDATES ALREADY

           According to EU diplomats, national governments have so far formally proposed "around 10 names" for the job of president, and a similar number for the post of "EU High Representative," the foreign- policy head. Reinfeldt confirmed that some of the potential candidates he was discussing with leaders had already been circulating in the international media. And he further confirmed that some of them were prime ministers in office. Asked about a Polish proposal that would see potential candidates putting their name forward, Reinfeldt said no top politician would risk their current job without receiving guarantees that they would eventually be appointed to their new European post.

           "The problem with this proposal is that it takes for granted that you can actually get three or more candidates to accept to be candidates without knowing if they will get the job while in fact maybe being prime minister of a country" Reinfeldt said. "Anyone who is in politics knows this is unrealistic," he said.

MAJORITY VOTE POSSIBLE  

           Under treaty rules, the president and foreign representative are appointed by qualified majority vote. And Reinfeldt conceded that no candidate was likely to obtain the unanimous backing of all 27 leaders. However, Reinfeldt said he would still work to muster "the broadest support" possible for the two posts. The full list of current nominees is a closely-guarded secret. However, diplomats in Brussels say Van Rompuy and Balkenende are both front-runners for the job of president.

            Italy's former premier Massimo D'Alema is rumoured to be a key candidate for the high representative's post after Britain's David Miliband repeatedly said that he was not a candidate. However, D'Alema is viewed with some concern in the EU's new member states which once were part of the Warsaw Pact because of his lifelong association with Italy's Communist party.

FRANCE AND GERMANY SEEM FURTHER APART THAN EVER

From a source in Brussels

              Throughout the Cold War, Germany was the steadfast trans-Atlantic ally and France the perpetual sceptic. Paris snubbed NATO, booted allied soldiers off its soil and sought a privileged relationship with Moscow. Then one night the Berlin Wall fell _and 20 years later, the roles subtly have shifted. Nicolas Sarkozy is seeking to be a NATO stalwart, bringing his country back into the alliance's military command.

              As a result, France received two NATO command posts. At the same time, Angela Merkel while reaching out to the United States is pursuing closer ties with Russia that have left Washington unsettled. This evolution in France and Germany's relationships with the Cold War superpowers is altering the shape of their own relationship, which both countries long considered the «motor» of the EU. Sarkozy and Merkel will send yet another powerful sign of their countries' friendship Wednesday at the Arc de Triomphe, when for the first time French and German leaders jointly mark the anniversary of the Nov. 11 armistice that ended World War One.

              Symbols aside, as much as Sarkozy and Merkel might like to emphasize the privileged nature of the Franco-German couple, ties between the countries are no longer what they used to be _and pushing the restart button over and over again does not guarantee a smooth ride. «Both sides' sense of the relationship has been lost,» said Josef Janning, senior director of the Bertelsmann Foundation. The two countries used to be at «the core of bargaining» in the EU, but «currently, nobody really knows what the purpose» of the relationship is, Janning said. Germany and France spent the decades after World War II in a long, painful period of «reconciliation» as Germany atoned for the Holocaust and its occupation of France.

GERMANY LOOKS EAST  

              After the Berlin Wall came down, Germany found it had to atone yet again, this time with Poland and Russia, both of which suffered greatly under Nazi invasions. Despite deep historical wariness all around, Poland and Russia also offered tremendous economic and even diplomatic opportunities for Germany to expand its influence eastward and thereby reduced Berlin's need to rely only on Paris as its major partner on the continent.

LAPSUS LINGUAE?

              In her first speech Wednesday to the German parliament since winning a second term as chancellor, Merkel said she wanted to pursue a broad security dialogue with Russia. She did not mention France or the Franco-German relationship in the speech. Germany's determination to make its relationship with Russia a top priority took off under Merkel's predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, who made a strategic decision to tether his nation firmly to Russia's immense energy wealth. Unlike Schroeder, Merkel has avoided fawning on Russia: She has moved to improve relations with Poland and has pledged to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in Afghanistan. But she has continued to deepen ties with Moscow through business and diplomatic initiatives.

BERLIN IGNORES PARIS COURTSHIP

              Conscious of its slipping profile in Germany, the French government in recent months has multiplied efforts to revive the relationship. The courtship includes high-profile political gestures, as well as numerous conferences devoted to the French-German relationship. In July, a new Franco-German military brigade marched down the Champs-Elysees on Bastille Day with Sarkozy looking on. The French Foreign Ministry on Monday spearheaded a huge light show and concert on the Place de la Concorde, celebrations billed as a «present» to the German people on the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall's fall. And on Wednesday, Merkel joins Sarkozy to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the armistice. In the long run, however, in the absence of concrete steps to reassert joint French-German leadership in Europe, these gestures may not have great meaning. «If you kiss,» Janning said, «it doesn't mean that much because it is part of the in and out of global diplomacy.»

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?

   While France loves the big gestures, the Germans are in a pragmatic mood these days, French-German specialists say. It shows in some of the business deals Germany has struck in recent months. Earlier this year, German industrial conglomerate giant Siemens pulled out of a nuclear power plant joint venture with France's Areva and then turned around to engage in talks on forming a nuclear energy venture with Russia's Rosatom. Siemens built the new high-speed train between Moscow and St. Petersburg for a line expected to open later this year. «The style fundamentally has changed,» Hans Stark, who chairs research into France and Germany at the French Institute for International Affairs, told a gathering of diplomats, analysts and journalists this week.

EU PRESIDENT NOMINATIONS SUMMIT ON NOVEMBER 19

By Marjorie Smith
Brussels


European Union leaders are expected to choose the first president of the 27-member bloc next week, at a summit scheduled for November 19, German Press Agency dpa learned from diplomats in Brussels on Tuesday.

            By then, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who is coordinating the negotiations, plans to have ended consultations with the EU member states - enabling the EU leaders to fill two new high-profile EU posts on November 19.  National leaders are currently debating who should get the jobs.

            According to diplomats in Brussels, the prime ministers of Belgium and the Netherlands, Herman Van Rompuy and Jan Peter Balkenende, are front-runners to claim the post of EU president. Britain's foreign minister, David Miliband, is said to be the front-runner for the job of EU high representative, even though he has regularly denied being interested in the job. Gordon Brown denied that Miliband was a candidate. Another contender for this post is former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema.

VAN ROMPUY IS NOT THE FAVOURITE, SAYS FRANCE'S KOUCHNER

                No favourites have yet emerged, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Tuesday. Kouchner said he doubted the 27 EU heads of state and government would agree this week, as had seemed possible, on who should become president of the EU Council and the bloc's high representative for foreign affairs. "Honestly, there are no favourites at the moment," he told France Inter radio. "France does not have any favourite. We are waiting. There will be a meeting, I think, next week. It should have been at the end of this week, but I don't believe that will happen."

            EU diplomats have said there was strong backing for Herman Van Rompuy, but Kouchner said Tony Blair and Jean-Claude Juncker remained in the running. "There is Tony Blair's name, of course, and that was the first. There is the name of the Belgian prime minister, and then there are other names. There is Jean-Claude Juncker," he said. Kouchner reiterated that France and Germany would support the same candidates and made no mention of who might become the bloc's foreign policy supremo.

            Although he declined to say who he supported for the office of president, he indicated that he wanted a heavy hitter. "The time has come for us to have someone who can make their weight felt not only in meetings, but in the preparation for these meetings, in the European debate," he said.

NEW EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS FACING GENDER ISSUES

By Marjorie Smith

           It appears that Manuel Barroso's attempts to form a new fairly gender neutral European Commision for the period 2010 to the end of 2014 has got of to a calamitous start. President Barroso explicitly asked the 27 Mmeber States to nominate more women as one of the 27 Commissioners in his new Commission.

           In the current Commission , there are 8 Commissioners out of a total of 27 (less than a third) and the current Vice-President of the Commission, Margot Wallstrom, has gone on the record calling for an increase of women being nominated for top jobs in international organisations.

         However, so far only five Member States have nominated a candidate to be a Commissioner and all five candidates are male. Gunter Oettinger, from Germany, Maros Sefcovic from Slovakia, Johannes Hahn from Austria, Laszlo Andor from Hungary and Stefan Fule from the Czech Republic. It appears also that Michel Barnier from France is a shoe-in as the French nominee.

           Six men nominated by six Member States is a worrying start to the nomination process. The stupid thing is that as Member States battle it out to get their 'guy' an impressive and important potfolio in the new Commission, it is those Member states who nominate a woman as a Commissioner who are going to have a head start if present trends in nominations continue.

THE SCUM AT THE SUN

Marjorie Smith

           The Sun's squalid ambush of Gordon Brown, by surreptitiously taping a private conversation between the PM and the mother of the deceased Grenadier Guardsman Jamie Janes deserves the utmost condemnation.

             The exploitation of a mother's grief for political ends by the Sun is a new low in the conduct of the print media in the UK. This follows the disgraceful treatment of Gordon Brown's visual disability the day before in the Sun, when Gordon Brown had sent a handwritten letter to Mrs Janes. Poorly written, it may have been, but that's the very nature of his disability which has been so shamelessly exploited for nefarious political ends by the editorial scum at the Sun.

           This is an outrageous breach of privacy and it should be noted was obviously a set-up by journalists at the Sun, without doubt with the full knowledge of the Editor AND the Chief executive of Murdoch's News International. This has not beeen Mrs Janes acting alone.

            One future initiative the PM should introduce immediately, is that any private conversation between the PM and a member of the public, should be conducted only on a encrypted phone that is provided (for the duration of the call only) by the cabinet office to the person involved.

           This follows the dreadful coverage of the PM's "supposed" conduct at the rememberance service at the cenotaph, when he allegedly failed to bow his head in respect, no doubt  being more concerned, because of his very poor eyesight,  about not falling over when walking backwards downstairs

            The conduct of the right-wing tabloid press over the past few days has been utterly appalling in relation to the Prime Minister's disabilty and if it was anybody else in public life outside politics, the journalist involved wouldn't even have started putting pen to paper. This has been a deliberate attempt by editorial teams in each of the right-wing press dictating to their minions what they wanted to see in their papers.

            The Editor of the Sun, Dominic 'Bizarre' Mahon, whose only real experience of journalism seems to have been confined to celebrity tittle-tattle (which I suppose makes him a perfect choice as editor of a downmarket tabloid) seems not to care one jot about journalstic ethics generally and the ethics code of the ineffectual Press Complaints Commission in particular.

COMPLIANT PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION IGNORES MURDOCH'S MURKY METHODS

Marjorie Smith

The very recent ruling by the Press Complaints Commission over News International journalists' illegal phone-tapping activities reveals two (now) blatantly obvious facts and several areas of great concern.

Firstly the PCC is a pliant, duplicitous and pathetic 'self-regulatory body' that has finally shredded what remaining credibility it had. It has demonstrated that it is utterly incapable of fulfilling the role for which it was set-up. It is nothing more than an excuse-mongerer for the worst excesses of the tabloid press.

Secondly, that under his tutelage, Rupert Murdoch through his minions conducted a wide-ranging intelligence gathering exercise that was not merely about gathering celebrity tittle-tattle. but also targeted senior political figures and others in positions of power and influence in the UK.

The PCC's claim that it is independent is fatuous in the extreme. To prove that some newspapers act with impunity when it comes to their nefarious activities, one illuminating example tells you everything you need to know. In a fact that is beyond satire, the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, is the Chair of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. One should also compare the number of complaints about press behaviour and add up the complaints not taken up by the PCC (because they are, allegedly, inadmissible) with those complaints they conduct a cursory investigation. Compared this with those cases they find against a newspaper and you will discover the results are laughable.

The legalistic and journalistic contortions that the PCC goes through in its 'investigations' and pronouncements which it uses to justify the activities of the printed media in the UK is nothing short of an outright disgrace. One startling example should be indicative on its own. The PCC does not have one member of Staff with any significant experience of being an investigator, not one. Yet it claims to conduct investigations.

Just also to underline how much it puts itself beyond ridicule, Peter Hill, when he was the editor of the Daily Star (yes, that shining example of tabloid journalism), was one of three editors of national newspapers on the Commission.

Or that 'the red-socked fop' (©John Prescott), Sir Christopher Meyer, was the Chair of the PCC from 1993 to 1999. In his account of his time in America as the UK's ambassador, in the best-selling book entitled DC Confidential, he angered Foreign Office colleagues who felt he had betrayed their profession by breaking the vow of confidentiality. Only a fundamentally-flawed organization as the PCC could believe that such a character would be a suitable figurehead.

Rupert Murdock's journalists have been exposed as gathering intelligence on thousands of people through nefarious means. This goes to the heart of his organisation in the UK. What did senior people at the News of the World (NoW), the Sun and at News International (NI) know about the activities at the NoW.

NI through at least one of its agents (NoW) was responsible for gathering personal and sensitive information on thousands of people. Perhaps the persons gathering (and more importantly utilising) such information ought to be referred to as N.I. 5 and N.I. 6.

It is utterly inconceivable in a modern–day organisation that has to have it's copy checked by lawyers, that has its expenditure audited by top accountancy firms and at each paper is overseen by an all-powerful editor, who reports to senior executives at NI, would be totally ignorant of the activities of its journalists.

There was undoubtedly, a hierarchy of command in the NoW directly feeding into NI. The only journalist at the NoW who they admit was involved is Clive Goodman, the ex-Royal Editor. Goodman was found to have paid a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, thousands upon thousands of pounds to provide phone-tapped material. From what we know of the material provided, this was extremely high value information for a tabloid newspaper. The payments for such information must have run into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Such information, when used to write stories by Goodman (and no doubt others) would have been the subject of checking by not just assistant editors at the NoW, but their in-house lawyers and by the, then editor, himself, Andy Colson. This is because stories about high-profile figures would inevitably be considered as front-page leads, which is for the editor to decide. Furthermore, because of the fame of the subject of such stories, approval would also have had to be gained from NI HQ.

It is beyond belief that at no stage did the hierarchy of command not know what the provenance of the story was, i.e. what is the basis of fact on which a story is based, what the source of that story is? Is the source reliable? How did we obtain the story? Is the evidence used to back-up the story obtained by legal means? Etc. etc. Crucially, if the story (stories) is/are based on material gained illegally, then the decision to uses such material must have been approved at the highest level in NI.

It is also beyond belief that, the monies paid for the information provided, was solely paid for by Goodman to Mulcaire. Whether in the form of cash or other forms of payment to Mulcaire, there must be a paper trail within NoW that can account for the monies paid to Mulcaire. There is somebody in management and in accounts who must have known what these payments where for and what payment methods were used to pay for such information.

It should also be noted that although only the NoW, has been found to have acted in a contemptible manner, it strains credulity to breaking point to think that similar activities were taking place at the Sun. With the shared-culture of both, the cross-fertilisation so beloved of Murdoch's empire and the switching of editors and other senior journalists between the two titles it would be impossible to keep such secrets from each other within the confines of their joint offices at Wapping.

Self-regulation like self-abuse, is no substitute for the real thing.

The Tories blatant appeal to sectarianism

By Marjorie Smith

Did anybody notice Conservative candidate Ruth Davidson's appearance on the BBC 10:00 o'clock news this evening (Friday 06/11). She is fighting a forlorn campaign, on behalf of the Tories, in the ex-Speaker, Michael Martin's old constituency,Glasgow North East.

However, One aspect of the coverage of her her campaign was extremely disturbing and very illuminating. Like all political parties, the current trend to cope with TV reporters ambushing candidates is for party activists is to donut the candidate with big cardboard party symbols so as to block out negative posters from the opposition. Nothing wrong with that in normal circumstances, all parties do it as they become more sophisticated about how their candidate is presented in the media.

What the Tories have done, though, with their posters is utterly repugnant, in terms of appealing to base instincts in the constituency, in order to boost the national narrative about the, allegedly, resurgent Tory party. Of all the cities in the UK (besides Belfast and Derry), Glasgow is a significant centre of religious sectarianism, in which symbols that proclaim the divide, have huge political impact.

It is into this febrile electoral campaign that an obviously co-ordinated Tory Central Office campaign run from London (the Tories' political PR people are the true heirs of Mandelson) thought up the Tories' chosen backdrop whenever, their candidate was 'doorstepped' by local TV cameras.

Perversely, for this part of Glasgow, the Conservative Party brand (good enough for any election in England) had morphed into;

Ruth Davidson

Conservative and UNIONIST PARTY (my emphasis)

The Unionist tag would never be used in a marginal seat in England or Wales

There is only one extremely pernicious reason to add the Unionist party tag on in this election and that is to appeal to the worst religious sectarian elements in the constituency. Glasgow is still a city divided by religion and the symbolic use of unionism is designed to appeal an element of the electorate who will respond to such use of dog-whistle politics.

The present-day Tory party are as shameless as any of their predecessors in their naked pursuit of power, it's just all the more galling that their supposed sophisticated PR machine wil use almost naked religious sectarianism in Glasgow, confident that the London-based media will fail to highlight their blatant hypocrisy.

THE ENO's TURANDOT - a review

TURANDOT
English National Opera at the London Coliseum.


Puccini’s final (unfinished) opera, is traditionally set in Beijing’s Imperial City with Princess Turandot’s sang froid in the face of eligible suitors being the central theme. Disconcertingly, Rupert Goold’s version opens in the dining area of a large Chinese restaurant. An eclectic set of over sixty characters, most of whom seem to have raided a fancy dress shop to find the most outlandish costumes, are corralled by six Chinese dominatrices, as a rare overture from Puccini ends.

What should have been a magnificent display of Sino-imperial splendour became a maelstrom of Elvises, Chelsea pensioners, drag queens, clowns, New York cops, orthodox Jews, nuns etc. etc., forming a pantomime excess that only served to diffuse concentration.. This was compounded by one character, in the form of Margaret Thatcher that continually and disconcertingly, drew the eye.

The first act, in short was chaotic, confusing and contrived. Even James Creswell’s rich and vibrant bass tones as Timur the exiled king, were sometimes overwhelmed by the hustle and bustle of the restaurant.

Act two opened with Ping (Benedict Nelson), Pong (Christopher Turner), and Pang (Richard Roberts), performing in a simple and focussed setting of a fire escape at the rear of the Imperial Palace restaurant, allowing their characterisation to fully emerge and hence to add some much-needed plot.. However, we soon returned to the chaotic setting of the interior, with the chorus’ costumes continuing to distract with their numerous cultural references. What was noteworthy were the eight dancers in Japanese manga make-up and costumes adding some much needed élan and focus to part two of the second act.

The juxtaposition between the chaos of Act one and the minimalist set of Act three then serves to emphasise the sheer brilliance of Puccini’s vision. The empty and quiet white tiled functional kitchen is a potent backdrop to Gwyn Hughes Jones’ tenor in the role of Calif (Timur’s son) as he delivers Nessun Dorma in an impressive manner. The power of the aria is enhanced by the chance to focus on the vocal performance without the organised chaos that so often distracted in the first and second acts.

Amanda Echalaz as a scene-stealing Lliu, singing a beguiling version of her second aria (You who are begirdled by ice) outperforming Kirsten Blanck’s Turandot, who never seemed to dominate the performance as the central character should. Scott Handy as Goold’s superfluous addition of a writer, silently observing the action was irritating and distracting in the extreme and his eventual death (silent, of course) was most welcome.

Whist each of the three acts climaxed with the entire chorus on stage, each time looking more and more like the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, at the finale, their reprise of Nessun Dorma was quite magnificent.
Goold’s production detracted from Puccini’s masterpiece rather than enhancing it and seemed pretentious, verging on the self indulgent in parts, which may be acceptable in musical theatre but singularly failed to deliver here. It is a pity that a multi-talented cast of chorus and leads were not given a much better vehicle to showcase their obvious high qualities.

The ENO’s current version of Turandot is on at the Coliseum until 12 December

HAIL CAMERON; THE WORKERS' FRIEND

By Marjorie Smith

David Cameron's recent pronouncement on a future Tory Government's relationship with the rest of the EU will have the delightful unintended consequence of the UK having to fully adopt the working-time directive if the Tories win power at the next election.

What the strategically-inept Tory leader has not factored into his calculations is that far from fatuously claiming he will repatriate powers from the European level, he has by his actions ensured the complete opposite.

The recent comments of the French Europe Minister Pierre Leliouche that Cameron will 'castrate' any UK influence in the EU under a Tory Government, is scarily accurate in his prediction. The tone of Cameron's speech yesterday allied with his decision to abandon the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament is, as seen from the rest of the EU, as foolhardy in the extreme and a strategic blunder of immense proportions.

By the very nature of being in a club with 27 members, deals are done all the time so as to maximise the interests of your own particular Member State. The larger the Member, exponentially, the greater the influence. However, if one wants to take an oppositionist stance within the EU, then one's influence and clout declines dramatically.

The amazing consequence of Cameron's actions is that if he carries on ploughing his lonely furrow in the EU (and wins the next general election) then it can be confidently predicted that the TUC's long campaign for the UK to fully adopt the working time directive will have a successful outcome.

Because the UK is perceived as a constructive and highly influential member of the EU, other Member States are quite prepared to make the odd political accommodation for it, when asked. For some strange reason, the Blair/Brown Government see the UK opt-out to parts of the Working Time Directive as a totemic political issue in the UK. They seem to have been cowered by the right-wing press, the CBI and the City over this issue.

Hence, by explaining to some of its EU partners, the self-perceived difficulties it would face if it had to fully adopt the directive, they have been indulged by a few Member States so as to form a blocking minority, when votes are taken. However, that coalition of Member States is predicated on the UK being seen as a constructive partner in the EU.

If the UK became, once again, a one-person awkward squad then the dynamics of the UK's relationship with its EU partners would change dramatically. At present the Member states that support the UK in its (so far successful) campaign to keep the opt–out are Poland, Germany, Estonia, Bulgaria, Malta and Slovenia.

It is extremely unlikely that a Merkel-led coalition (with the liberal Free Democrats) will continue to support the UK over this issue, especially as Cameron has already led his party out of the main centre-right group to set up his own group made up of the vacuous, the vile and the venal under the banner of the European Conservatives and Reformists. In addtion, when a large Member State switches position, then it is normally followed by at least one or two smaller Member States.

Consequently, when the working time directive is next reviewed, the UK will find itself isolated, or with insufficient friends to be able to successfully block any changes to the Directive. The UK opt-out will disappear, we will have to adopt the directive in full and Cameron will have egg all over his face.

All this because of Cameron's lack of strategic thinking, which, except for unintended consequences, bodes ill if this man ever get the keys to number ten.

CAST-IRON CAMERON -THE CHANCER'S CONTORTIONS CONTINUE

By Marjorie Smith

As unprincipled as ever, David Cameron's latest policy dumping is the 'cast-iron' guarantee he made to his party, that he would deliver a referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

To those who defend his current position as mere pragmatism and a reaction to 'facts on the ground', this is errant nonsense and exposes Cameron for what he is - adept tactically but a strategic fool and a political coward.

When he gave his 'cast-iron' guarantee in Rupert 'Mendacity' Murdoch's Sun in September 2007 that he would deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he made himself a hostage to fortune. Anybody influential in right-wing circles (except William Hague it seems) should have cautioned Cameron with the advice to make his guarantee conditional.

All that was needed was the addition of the phrase "only if the Treaty has not been ratified by all 27 Member states of the EU and consequently passed into EU law". He could even have buried that conditional phrase somewhere in the latter paragraphs of the Sun article and still got the headlines he desired.

It is appalling that he either did not receive (highly doubtful) or refused to listen (highly likely) to advice that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the Lisbon Treaty would be law before a general election would take place in the UK.

Regarding the accusation of poetical cowardice, Cameron knew before his party's conference (five short weeks ago) that his position on the 'cast-iron guarantee' was untenable, as he almost certainly would have been informed by his close pal and fellow neocon, the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus that he would have to sign the Czech ratification sometime soon. Cameron was well aware that Klaus' signature on the Czech ratification would lift the last barrier to the Lisbon Treaty becoming EU law.

Yet, in his speech to the Tory faithful, he made no mention of his policy u-turn, no effort to prepare the ground for his reversal, no reference to the foolhardiness of his original guarantee. He simply chose to ignore it and for the whole of the conference hoped it would go away.

This though is not the end of Cameron's contortions, in a speech today he is will lay-out his latest position concerning the EU. In it he will promise to aggressively pursue a policy of repatriating powers from the EU. Furthermore, he will promise referendums on all future EU Treaties (or will he mean it?).

Firstly, his promise to get the UK to opt-out of the social chapter is doomed to abject failure. Like Cervantes' Don Quixote tilting at windmills in La Mancha he will singularly fail to achieve anything of any substance in any negotiations that might take place. Quite simply, the rest of the EU are not going to let the UK under a Tory Government practice social dumping at the expense of the other 26 Member States. He migh even be able to persuade a couple of other right-wing governments of the merits of his argument. His only problem is that he has to persuade all 27. Tilting at Windmills, anyone?

Secondly, his promise to hold referendums on all future EU treaties will also be shown to be hollow, if he ever gets into power. Is he seriously considering holding a referendum on the accession of Croatia or Montenegro to the EU? As any accession means that an EU treaty (an accession treaty) has to be agreed unanimously by all Member States.

If not that, what about an accession treaty that has some minor changes to how the EU is run? If not that, how about an accession treaty that has some substantial changes that are manifestly in the UK's interests, will he put that to a referendum?

Cameron is in thrall to his profoundly eurosceptic party,hence all his fifficulties with his vile partners in the European Parliament. He has neither the political commitment or the strategic vision to takeon his party over Europe and wil instead continue to pander to their petty prejudices.

Why Alan Johnson is skating on thin ice

Marjorie Smith

Alan Johnson's justification for sacking Professor Nutt over his refusal to acquiesce with the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis from C to B under the Misuse of Drugs Act is spurious in the extreme.

The main reason that the Labour leadership seems to struggles over this issue is that there is a streak of Christian Socilalist thinking (Straw, Brown, Blair et al) that seems to rely more on the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers rather than those more well-versed in what is actually happening on the streets. It is an ethos that top-down policy making based on moral certainties are appropriate for how society should govern itself.

The Government seem intent to keep on digging a gigantic hole over this issue and continues to flip flop like a startled fish in a Japanese sushi bar.

It was David Blunkett who declassified cannabis as a Class B to Class C in 2002. Taken on the advice of experts this seemed at the time a reasonable step, only opposed by the indignanti of the Mail and Telegraph brigade. This was shortly followed by the virtual de-criminalisation of canabis in Brixton, implicitly indulged by the Home Office who wanted to test public opinion on attitudes to cannabis.

The forces of reaction made sure that the public furore (mainly confined to the Op-Ed pieces and letters page of the said Mail and Telegraph) was blown-up into a media firestorm that intimidated the Home Secretary and the Home Office to beat a hasty retreat.

Then this was followed by a drip, drip, drip campaign about the dangers of drugs generally and their burgeoning effects on society as a whole. Often juxtaposes with the rare, but still tragic case, of individuals who had adverse reactions to taking drugs. The Government (and especially the Prime Minister) so often in thrall to the Daily Mail eventually caved in to the editorial line of Paul Dacre and performed a policy u-turn.

As Sue Blackmore in the Guradian, so elequently exposed Jacqui Smith's reasoning for reclassifying Cannabis to Class B . "In May 2008 Jacqui Smith announced that she wanted to reverse the decision and put cannabis back to Class B. She said she was concerned about the evidence linking cannabis smoking with schizophrenia, and with the increase in the supply of skunk and other strong forms of the drug.

There was indeed some evidence of a link with schizophrenia but the numbers of people affected are tiny, the risk small, and the reason for the correlation unknown (for example people who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia may be more likely to smoke cannabis or to find it helpful). Some research even suggests that there is no link and that people diagnosed with "cannabis-induced psychosis" would have developed the symptoms anyway but blamed the drug. And interestingly, since the 1950s there has been a huge increase in cannabis smoking with no change in the rate of schizophrenia."

The other main reason for reclassification was that the stregth of skunk on the street had dramatically increased over the years and that the level of active ingridient (THC) in street level skunk was much higher than 30 years ago.

This simple claim by the Home Secretary reveals the absolute paucity of rationality behing the decision. The reason why skunk is so uchmore popular than it was is precisely because it is stronger and crucially it is widely available due to widespread expert cultivation in the UK. In other words the skunk (then more widely know simply as grass) of 20-3o years ago was widely dislike because of its poor quality, it was viewed as the smoke of last resort.

The valid comparison should have been made between today's skunk and yesterdfay's hashish, such as Red Lebanese, Moroccan Gold etc etc that came in a block and was and probably still is stronger than today's street-level skunk. If you compare apples with oranges you get bizarre results.

Labours rush to heavily increase the criminalisation of today's youth reveals a nasty anti-libertarian streak within the current Government that does society no favours and does young people especially, no favours.