Europe. Cameron comes in from the cold,- and effectively.

David Cameron will have come home from his couple of days in Brussels with some satisfaction.None of this will have been derived from the £120 a bottle wine served at the leaders' inevitably non austerity dinner. They just don't do the under £10, the under £20, £50 or even £100 ranges on these occasions and must have some peculiar assumption that their millions of constituents wouldn't want them to either. "Nothing but the best for our leaders" must be the Eurocrats assumption of what the struggling masses would be saying if asked. Indeed the same rule of opulence extends everywhere one finds the officials, from the front of aeroplanes to the creature comforts of their offices. As is well known though, nobody in Brussels does actually ask "the people" what they want,- even whether or not they want an EU in its political rather than free trade area form at all.

Having flown over (What, no Eurostar?) against a background of media and Labour pictures of how foolish it would be to isolate the UK from the centre of vital European decison making and all those "can't/mustn't do it" bogeymen  and Guardianista and Blairists' handwringing about how vital the EU monolith concept is to Europe's survival in the face of the world's other and trading giants, it was expected that Dave would return isolated ,with a bloody nose and a straight "No" from everything to all he demanded.

Instead he was far from isolated . Instead there emerged a new grouping of the UK, the Nordic countries, Holland and a Germany split from its usual bedmate France. These countries all said "Enough" and agreed that spending must be curbed.  Holland's socialist, agriculture subsidy addicted, France risked Angela's scowls and positioned itself  with the southern  and ex Soviet satellite "We want more money" group . These good people also believe that the financier of their cargo cult should be Germany. What would anyone be saying if they were a good, hard working German especially if  one of those on the western side of the country who have paid for former East Germany to become part of the unified country?

The UK and Germany, despite their historic propensity for knocking nine bells out of each other, always been far more natural allies than adversaries. The Franco/German alliance has on the other hand been a much less natural one born of politics and a sort of German conscience. In general it has tied Germany's hands and benefitted France. Maybe, just maybe, the relationship  will now become less cosy or at least excluding of others . If that happens the EU could be much more free to rethink its own future. To do that , the politicians will also have to take on the biggest block to debate, -the very highly paid officials who have ben allowed to create a dream world in which they have been all powerful.  They were,- at last,- the clinically targeted aim of much that Cameron had to say this week. They personally have everything to lose and little to gain from any major change in the way the organisation does its business. They have always seen the scowling UK as the biggest threat to their power and glory. In natural response they are the biggest block to debate or anything that smacks of a real democracy rather than top-down rule by the unelected Commission itself. Their power control needs are very high and ultimately threaten the EU as an institution. Again Cameron scored a bullseye the machine rather than the member states this week. The boy done well.

Inevitably there were some ritual denialist mutterings from the UK's Labour Party about Cameron having (again) upset the EU and left Britain friendless (it always has been) and without influence (which the Europhiles, unware of the conversations that really happen in the offfice blocks, bars and restaurants of Brussels have always deluded themselves into believing the UK ever had.). In fact by drawing a line in the sand of profligacy, the UK brought a fundamental split into the open and  moved back to centre stage. It did not end up alone as hoped by Van Rompuy, Barroso and friends but was now joined by others  talking good, hard , financial sense.

Far from isolating Britain this week, Cameron has brought the country to centre stage as part of a rational group for whom continuing profligacy by the EU and the serious control ambitions and self indulgence of officials is not an option. The next round is "In the New Year". There is much to be done to consolidate this week's gain before then . For sure the "Spend" group will be working hard to overturn it and the Commission officials will be seeking every way to consolidate, perpetuate and grow their power,- their comfort ,and even those £120 bottles of wine.

Quickies behind the headlines...

-David Cameron is saying it is time to pin back profligate EU Commission spending. Absolutely right even if predicatably unpopular in Brussels where the spenders live,play and eat very well. Ed Miliband warns against standing up to the EU as the UK might lose influence. The reality ,to which Miliband either is blind to/denies or just doesn't comprehend ,is that the UK has never had much real power in the core of the EU.  There is little love for Britain in the largely socialistic and centralising corridors of Brussels, a city which itself would be pretty much dead if it were not for presence of the huge and free spending organisation. To seek to appease it by rolling over and accepting further profligacy is absurd as well as demeaning. Britain's greatest, if lonely, role is to be counter the self indulgent culture and get the organisation to be a realistic and useful addition to Europe's effectiveness rather than a huge financial and administrative drag on all it does. Does Asia lumber itself with such a cumbersome overarching, controlling and initiative,- stifling burocracy? No.

-The ongoing sad saga of Syria with the added complication of Gaza continues to goad western, and particularly British , consciences to "do something about it". But what? With whom? How? America is weary of the Middle East and  (New)Obama has clearly said that its real foreign policy interests are clearly in Asia. They are certainly not going to put boots on the ground and nor should anyone else. Nor will America rein in Israel as they should have done decades ago. That tail will continue to wag the dog. In Syria the multiplicity of factions and the lack of a clearly desirable, nice, clean, human rights orientated potential victor means that although it is different to Afghanistan there is nothing any military intervention is going to get other than a good hiding. The policy therefore has to continue with the diplomacy, probably unsuccessfully , and meanwhile to work with the country's neighbours to do everything possible to ease the humanitarian crisis by building and supplying (temporary) refugee camps along the borders.

-The penny or cent is slowly beginning to drop in some places that many so called eco-friendly policies of using only renewable sources for fuel and power generation are far from being what they claim and come at a massive price. Converting power stations to wood burning has to be lunacy. They do not carefully consume handfuls of sticks gathered in from the nearest woodlands. They gulp down piles of wood,- every hour, night and day. Wood doesn't renew itself in a few days. It takes years. That means that to meet eco targets we would have to cut down practically every rainforest on the face of the globe,- and still not have enough wood. The results would include extensive desertification and world food shortages. Eco? Good for mankind? No. Hideously expensive and self defeating? Yes.

- Moves in the UK to speed up and simplify planning approvals, particularly for strategic infrastructure projects, are being noisy resisted by countless "Say No To...." groups.  It isn't that hearings are being abolished. Nor are appeals on the way out. It's simply proposed that those be reduced to to from the current four. Similarly the ability to demand judicial reviews of almost anything the government proposes to do /has done is also under question. The reviews aren't being abolished, just reined in so that the government is more free to do what it was elected to do,- get on and do the things necessary to run the country now and in the future. That does not seem unreasonable in the face of UK's visible slide from sclerosis into paralysis.

-Talking of sclerosis, the Sunday Times reports that poor old diarist Samuel Pepys had to spend a whole Saturday in the 1760s producing a report on how to sort out the naval dockyards at Portsmouth. A whole Saturday for one man!  That's not bad compared to the 3 years Sir Howard Davies , working with countless others, has been given to come up with (another) review of UK airports policy. The reality, -as many know,- is that the recommendations of this group could be produced at the end of a single day spent in some gloomy hotel basement by a gathering of real aviation experts. They might lack a few of the minutae, minutes of meetings with newt conservationists, badger protection groups and others but they would on a few flipcharts converted into a plain old fashioned Powerpoint presentation knocked up by a couple of young grads in the teabreak simply and clearly declare the obvious. As it is, the 3 year study, due for mid 2015 ,is in the best British tradition likely to simply form the basis for..... further discussion and consultation. Stretch , yawn and  the popping of more corks in Amsterdam and Paris.

Footnote: The Roskill Commission  thoroughly investigated the airports question and came up with the answer in 1973. According to 7 commissioners who did not live in Buckinghamshire ,the best alternative to Heathrow ( seen then as an addition to , not a replacement for it) is at Wing/Cublington in Buckinghamshire. The 8th member, who lived in Buckinghamshire, dissented and,- won. The answer still is correct. Apart from leaving it where it is at Heathrow, the right place for London's primary hub airport would be Wing/Cublington ,nicely situated between London and the large population areas around the south midlands and Birmingham. It could even be linked to the much objected-to new HS 2 high speed rail line. That would allow both "Say No To..." protest groups to be rolled into one. A big cost saving for the protest groups. Buckinghamshire County Council is already spending six figure sums of taxpayers' money on fighting HS2 or at least its preferred route through the "influential" mid Chiltern corridor. They would though probably consider more favourably an alternative, more southerly, route closer to where many more but much less "influential" people live. That's the reality of local "democracy". There aren't too many celebreties, retired actors, barristers and the like in High Wycombe. 

The US Election goes to the wire.

With just 24 hours to go before those who haven't already voted go to the polls at least everyone seems to agree that this one will go to the wire and a photofinish, followed maybe by days of legal wrangling to. Nothing other than an orderly world ever seems to be bad news for lawyers.

There is though a feeling that Obama will just about squeeze home. He's made it more difficult for himself by that one slip,- his disastrous, lacklustre performance in the first televised debate with Romney. Maybe one day we will know why he allowed himself to perform so badly. Exhaustion goes with the job and electioneering in particular so it's no excuse.

His victory would be partly because most people approve of the way he has handled the aftermath to Sandy ("God's indicator" say some) but it would probably be more because of the way the Electoral College works. There are many websites which explain this, one being http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012 elections electoral college map.html;.

There are more paths to victory for Obama than for Romney although if Romney won all the states that Bush gained in 2000 he would have a much bigger victory due to changes in population. If though he wins those states but loses Ohio he loses. That's one reason why everyone will be watching Ohio.

It is quite possible that Obama will win the Presidency though with fewer votes than Romney . That's what happened in 2000 in Bush v Gore when Gore won more votes overall.

If it does turn out that way the Republicans may be very sore losers and, with a continuing majority in the House of Representatives/Congress , they may make life even more difficult for Obama in his second term.

Either way the next President is going to have to make some very tough choices. It might,- as in the UK in 2010, be easier for the losers.


Andrew Lloyd-Williams.