Â鶹ԼĹÄ

I am on leave this week so won’t be blogging much, although I hope to post my regular Thursday article.

I also hope I will return from Britain with a better feel for the way the domestic politics around the Lisbon Treaty is developing.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that whether I am in Latvia or Lisbon I can read the British papers.

But nothing beats actually having them in your hands - the smeared with thick-cut marmalade and a muesli-stained - for taking the pulse.

It already seems that I have to confess I am wrong on one point. I always thought it was wishful thinking on the part of Labour strategists that as soon as Europe became a hot issue it would automatically reignite the civil war.

The troops are gathering before our eyes.

A matter of trust

is being pressed to promise that if he became prime minister, there would be a referendum on the even if it had been voted through by the House of Commons.

He is reluctant to concede. This is very dangerous territory for a leader who has made the case for a referendum a matter of trust.

What’s he got to worry about? Well, wrecking his chances to be a popular PM before he’s even started.

The assumption throughout Europe and the British political classes is that Britain would vote “No” to the treaty, if people were given a say. Presumably a newly-elected Conservative government would actually be campaigning for this “No” vote. So the assumption is of an easy victory.

Still, politicans can’t take victory for granted.

No newly-elected prime minister would want take even a slight risk of an authority-sapping defeat.

So, a financially drained, physically exhausted Conservative party - the first Conservative administration for more than a decade - eager to get on with its exciting new plans, would be plunged into a new campaign almost immediately.

Who knows, a demoralised and defeated under a younger and more pro-European leader might even feel buoyed-up by a chance of a bit of guerrilla warfare? Many would feel it was a distraction.

A detaching treaty

But supposing Prime Minister Cameron held and won such a referendum. Would that be that? Would his troubles would be over?

Not quite.

The leaders of France, Germany, 24 other states and the European Commission would be incandescent with fury.

They certainly wouldn’t abandon the treaty, if they had all endorsed it by that stage. Britain would have to negotiate some separate deal. It’s unlikely a few more and opt-outs would satisfy Mr Cameron’s party - or be on offer from the rest of the EU.

The options would range from full withdrawal, which would probably mean negotiating 26 new treaties with our ex-partners, to some semi-detached relationship with the EU itself.

The exact course the government should follow would be eagerly debated by Europhiles, Europhobes, Euro-realists, semi-detachers, re-negotiators, and all.

Being Norway or Switzerland might prove of great benefit to the UK. But becoming Switzerland or Norway would be painful and a long-drawn-out process.

Ministers who had hoped to turn their backs on Brussels would find themselves spending even more time there, negotiating changes to the common fisheries policy, disentangling themselves from the working out what would happen to trade negotiations without at the helm, and so on.

And of course, as we all know, there can be no institutional change under the Conservatives without a referendum. So ministers would be gearing up for another time-, effort- and money-consuming referendum on a new treaty.

Instiwatsit?

Incidentally, for some reason the political classes have decided that Gordon Brown’s promise to block further institutional reform is the same as a promise to stop any further integration.

This is almost certainly either falling for spin, or a desire to hold the prime minister to a promise he never made.

Or it may just be confusing two words, which after all are quite long and both begin with the letters “i” and “n”. So, ladies and gentlemen, what were the incontestable, incandescent, inconsolable, insistently instant instructions from our prime minister?

What he said was that and suggested this would hold good at least until 2014.

Of course, institutional changes can mean further integration, but they are not the same thing.

It’s a bit like someone saying they’re cutting out lunch, and others taking it to be a promise never to have a sandwich, because people often have sandwiches for lunch.

Take an example. If the European Union proposed that all police in Europe should wear the British bobby’s helmet, emblazoned with the words in golden European stars, this would seem to me to be a significant act of further integration.

But it could be done under existing rules, if everyone agreed – or, under the new rules, by majority voting. It doesn’t require institutional change.

So Mr Brown’s words are indeed a blow to those who love (Why navels are singled out as a metaphor for self-absorption, I don’t quite know – it’s not a fascination I have ever come across in real life.) But few think any further institutional changes are required, because doesn’t require them.

He won't do it

But I digress. Back to Prime Minister Cameron’s first term and the new relationship with the European Union. While some will say, “It’s simple, just walk away,” divorce, separation, or even sleeping in different rooms, is not simple.

Other states might veer from wanting to punish Britain, to being merely stand-offish, but they wouldn’t be helpful and would probably adopt a stance that would highlight the difficulties of disentanglement.

The whole process would be top of the news half the time and absorb much of the prime minister’s attention.

And the cry, “What about schools?” “What about hospitals?” would go up. A Conservative MEP who wants a very different relationship with the EU volunteered that it would take something of a granite-willed monomanic like Enoch Powell to achieve this.

He concluded such beasts no longer existed in British politics, or at least didn’t get to become party leaders or prime ministers.

It might be morally correct, historically far-sighted and extremely popular to give a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified, but it would dominate Prime Minister Cameron’s first term. And that’s why he won’t do it then, any more than Gordon Brown will do it now.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Vladimir Putin has a catchy turn of phrase and can’t seem to help himself, with pithy remarks about sanctions and

These were the headlines, but the summit itself was This was in large measure due to the Portuguese who are in the chair, They’ve worked hard and seem extremely efficient, but this is not what I mean.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates and his cabinet have a very romantic view of Russia. They love its music and its literature and see it as an important part of European civilisation. They think it is wrong to speak loudly or rudely to Russia, and think the EU missed an opportunity in the last decades when Russia was reaching out towards Europe. For them a smooth summit with no explosive lectures was essential.

They got agreements on and an early-warning system if there are problems with energy supply.

But as I say, Putin can’t help himself, and suggested a human rights monitoring organisation to examine abuses in Russia and the EU. One German journalist I spoke to saw this as hugely important, saying with reverence, "It will be based in Brussels." But people from the European Commission were bemused and I’m sure Putin’s taking the micky.

These summits are odd affairs, essentially between the relevant commissioners, the presidency and the

If Poland, Estonia or Latvia had been in the chair, the mood would have been very different. (See my reports from Latvia and Poland earlier in the week.)

One of the proposals in the controversial (and it was also a key part of the constitution) is to replace the buggins’-turn presidency with a permanent figure - Tony Blair, some muse, though it’s more likely to be or

But how much will individual nations miss putting their own stamp on such affairs?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"If nobody is held responsible, it will happen again, I am absolutely sure."

The rather chilling words of Marina Litvinenko, the widow of the man apparently murdered by poisoning with a rare artificial radioactive element in a London hotel.

She is in Lisbon because the European Union’s leaders are meeting President Putin for a regular summit.

At the moment, there are no plans to raise this case, but just to talk in general terms about human rights.

Mrs Litvinenko says it’s not a matter of human rights, but of European safety, and the EU should give formal backing to the British position.

One voice

The best the European Commission hopes for from this meeting is to get it over without any real rows, and without rocking the boat.

Throughout my trip to Latvia, Lithuania and Poland I heard the same refrain: Europe must speak with one voice.

In Gdansk, the grand old man who helped bring communism to its knees, Lech Walesa - surrounded by pictures of himself with the last pope, a cruxifix on the wall over his shoulder - told me he was in no doubt how to deal with Russia: “solidarity”.

Europe had a single interest, and yes it should speak with one voice, he said.

Curiously, for an organisation that’s often thought to lack clout, the European Union does matter to Russia.

When, a few months ago, EU foreign ministers issued a statement backing Britain’s demand to extradite the man suspected of murdering Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian response was swift and furious. This was a matter between Britain and Russia. If the EU raised it again there would be consequences.

Locked wardrobes

One Western diplomat said, "They wanted to lock this case in a wardrobe marked 'UK'." Indeed, the Russians have lots of wardrobes for lots of issues, from the ban on Polish meat to Estonia’s treatment of its Russian minority.

The Russian ambassador to the European Union, with his curly grey hair and mischievous smile, seems an avuncular teddy-bear of a man. Only when he speaks do you get a hint the bear may have claws of steel.

He told me, talking about the Baltics not Britain, that the European Union hindered bilateral relationships.

Indeed the EU’s principle of - here he used Lech Walesa’s favourite word – solidarity, hindered good relations with the EU itself.

President Putin is now in Portugal, and I wonder whether it was any coincidence that just before he arrived he talked on the phone about a juicy energy deal to the prime minister of Norway, a country resolutely outside the European Union?

Great power aspirations

But why does Russia bother?

One diplomat told me the Russians saw themselves as a great power, the equal of big international organisations like Nato and the EU. They’re also desperate to join the World Trade Organisation. This where they want high business to take place – other, lesser nations would be bought or bullied with oil or trade, the diplomat said.

Well, perhaps the EU is not so different to a country, at least in that respect.

The leaders here are anxious not to rock the boat, and want to emerge from this summit without any major disagreements.

In this case the EU carries a fairly big stick, but will probably choose to speak softly rather than use it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

We have had the first real sign that the planned law aimed at making manufacturers produce greener cars is going to be watered down.

The European Parliament, meeting in Strasbourg, has for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Or should that read "tougher targets"?

It's hard to say: the parliament has voted for a target of 125g of carbon emissions for every kilometre driven. That's not as tough as the European Commission,

But the parliament's target would have to be achieved through car design alone, whereas 10g of the commission target could be reached by using biofuels and the like, so some would argue the commission target is really 130g.

The current average car emission is 160g.

Confused ? I am.

Anyway the greens aren't happy.

'Judas'

This is the proposal for a new law which I have been trying to

The parliament's vote was on what is known in the jargon as an "own initative" report. In other words, it has no legal force. On the other hand, it’s a warning shot that if the European Commission sticks to its current plans it’s likely it would be defeated when MEPs do get a full vote on the full law.

The report MEPs were voting on was written by Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies, who argues that while some people want to punish car makers, he’s interested in a workable law that benefits the environment.

During the debate, earlier in the week, this infuriated the pony-tailed Green MEP from Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, who said Mr Davies had gone from "a green liberal climate-change hero" to "a climate-change Judas".

Aat Peterse from the green pressure group said: "MEPs seem to have lost their nerve. Sadly, there is an increasing disparity between what MEPs say needs to be done about climate change, and what they are prepared to actually get on and do."

He says the commission should stick with an older target – 120g - when it comes up with actual proposals for a new law later in the year.

It’s pretty likely they won’t. There’s been a fight between Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who is standing up for German drivers and manufacturers, and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas from the moment this idea was first mooted.

It’s going to get sharper as they actually knuckle down to writing a directive, as EU laws will be continued to be called in the Lisbon Treaty.

MEPs also backed plans for huge warnings about the cleanliness or otherwise of the product on car ads: they say these should take up 20% of the space, similar to the big warnings on cigarette packets.

'Weapon'

I asked Mr Davies, a long-term environmental campaigner, how it felt to be called "a climate change Judas" and whether he was handing Mr Verheugen a weapon in the coming battle.

His answer was one of rueful honesty.

"Yes. Yeah I am. But at the end of the day I am trying to get two things here. First of all, do I like being called a climate changed Judas? Not really. Not when I’ve got Chris Huhne back in the UK saying we want to stay at the front of the environmental debate, we don’t want to ever be seen to be out-sold by the Greens.

"So adopting what I regard as realistic position here doesn’t necessarily fit in with being an opposition party that likes to vote about its green credentials back in the United Kingdom.

"As for the debate with commissioner Verheugen, undoubtedly that’s going to take place, and he and his officials will seize on this report as a weapon in that internal discussion."

But he argues he’s done a deal which avoids the danger of the parliament voting for a report from the industry committee next month, which was recommending a 135g target.

Is the car industry winning this battle?

Are the MEPs right?

Should there be any law in the first place?

You tell me.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This is the third of three pieces I've written to set the scene for Friday's EU-Russia summit, as I explain here.

The Friendship pipeline snakes all the way from Siberia to the largest oil refinery in Eastern Europe, in Lithuania.

But friendships can come to a sudden end.

The walls of the headquarters of the oil refinery are lined with black-and-white photographs of Soviet-era workers, looking suitably heroic, building the plant.

When Lithuania became an independent country 16 years ago, the oil kept flowing, the friendship kept going after a fashion.

Taps off

But when the Lithuanian government decided to privatise the plant, it chose to sell to a Polish company rather than Russia’s which was eager to purchase this window on the West - the modern equivalent of a warm-water port.

According to the company’s PR department, the sale was announced in June, and by July the Russians had discovered that the pipeline was leaking.

The taps were turned off and have never been turned on again. Is this an example of Russian bullying, normal commercial practice, coincidence or accident?

The management here simply doesn’t want to speculate.

I was told before interviewing the Polish director of that he wouldn’t talk politics, but he seemed to want to gloss over the last year altogether.

The company does still get Russian oil from a sea route and is also looking to South America, so when I ask him what happened, he told me: "We are trying to earn money in the current environment. It means we are searching for the best offer as far as supplies are concerned."

So I asked him again: "What happened to the other supply route? Did you turn up to work one day and it wasn’t working?"

He replied: "We are concentrating on the current situation and the current situation is that one route isn’t working, so we are concentrating on our other route which is available."

I persisted: "But did you turn up to work one day and the oil wasn’t coming in?"

He ignored the question and instead said: "Hopefully we have a connection to the sea, and that allows us to get suppliers from different sources."

Punishment?

This is perhaps what one expects from a company that is a minnow compared to the giant Gazprom, and one might have expected the same sort of evasion from the Lithuanian government, which is equally dwarfed by Russia’s might.

Not a bit of it.

The Lithuanian president, Valdas Adamkus, is an interesting man, who fought the Soviets when they invaded and then fled to America where he made a career in the US environmental protection agency.

In a state room where he once greeted both the Queen and President Bush, Mr Adamkus told me that he’s sure the switch-off was intended as punishment for selling to the Poles.

"I have no doubt about this. Let’s be honest, there is no need any more to cover up with nice diplomatic phrases," he said.

"At the very beginning it was definitely a very reasonable technical issue. We offered assistance from our specialists to repair it. No response. Formal letters came from the presidents, even came from the EU president Barroso, no response, total ignorance.

"Finally they have admitted that they don’t intend to deliver any more to Lithuania. I don’t believe that this is really fair dealing with their neighbours."

What is now known as "energy security" will be high on the agenda of the

When Russia turned off the taps to Ukraine in the new year of 2006 the householders in the rest of Europe didn’t shiver for long, if at all.

But the politicians did... at the thought of a European Union that depends on Russia for half its gas and a third of its oil needs.

Free trade

The EU wants plenty of different supply routes from Russia and elsewhere and is beginning to see renewable energy as a strategic "must" as well as an environmental imperative.

But what they would really like is to be able to trust Russia, and not feel that Gazprom has them over a barrel.

The Lithuanian president, like most leaders of the ex-communist countries, wants a firm, single European policy towards Russia and wants to hear that voice raised at the summit.

"I believe the European Union, all the members, should speak with one voice, as far as the EU relationship with Russia is concerned. We still want to see Russia as a good neighbour, a co-operative neighbour," he says.

"We want to see Russia as a real participant in European affairs, because let’s face it, it’s a great country which has a lot of potential. It’s a country which needs to participate in European affairs, bringing stability to the entire European continent.

"But it should be dealt with strongly, clearly... If we are talking about free trade - and Russia definitely needs markets in Europe and around the world – if Russia wants to be in the World Trade Organisation, a fully-fledged market, I believe they have to play according to same rule that applies to everybody."

"Or else, what?" I ask.

"Or else if they want to be isolated from the rest of it, that’s their choice."

Nuclear deficit

At the end of my all-too-brief tour of Poland and two of the Baltic states, I sought out the Russian response.

The Russian ambassador to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, is also an interesting man, a former deputy foreign minister.

His curly grey hair and broad smile give him an avuncular appearance but when you listen to his replies you see the steel that makes him a Kremlin favourite.

He says the EU-Russia relations are "complex, multi-faceted, not without problems". But he denies that Russia uses energy as a political tool.

"Well, it is totally untrue. We never cut off pipelines in order to punish anybody. When there is a rupture in the pipeline, yes, the supply has to be cut off to avoid environmental disaster.

"Pipelines have to be cut off when somebody’s not paying for the gas. It’s the same on a household basis, so whenever any of your viewers in Britain stops paying his or her bills for gas, British Gas will come and cut it off.

"That’s what’s been happening. I would say, on the contrary, as an example of politicising the energy business, I can give you a small example.

"Before the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, during the pre-accession talks, they were made to abandon the existing nuclear power stations, those that had been built by my country’s specialists during various years, for purely political reasons - not because all those reactors were Chernobyl-type, or too old. Actually, the oldest nuclear power reactors are those in Britain.

"So, as a result, starting from 2009, most countries of that particular part of Europe, will have to suffer for at least five to six years a deficit of energy. And as a result, the governments of those countries, applied to Russian suppliers of oil and gas for additional amounts, and Brussels begins crying wolf saying that the degree of dependence on Russians supplies is growing. It’s a situation created by the European Union itself."

Fish flour fuss

I asked him about the specific example of the Lithuania refinery. Why was oil not flowing through the Friendship pipeline?

"There was a series of ruptures in the pipeline along this 70km stretch. And since then the technological survey of the Russian Federation has been assessing the situation from a technical point of view, and also the owner of the pipeline, which is a Russian company, has been assessing the feasibility of restoring it.

"I’m not aware of the conclusions that they might reach eventually, this is still to come, but understandably, the company might have views on whether it is worthwhile to repair the pipeline or not.”

I put it to him that the Lithuanian president rejects that argument.

"Well, it’s his personal view. He’s entitled to have one."

"But you’re saying there’s no politics."

"No politics. No politics."

Then I turn to the question of trade, which I referred to in my posting from Latvia, and touched on briefly in the article on Poland. He starts by talking about the Polish ban on fish flour.

"You see, if our veterinary experts find that the fish flour is actually two-thirds bone flour, from animals, rather than fish, it doesn’t smell of politics, it smells of fraud.

"And the bone flour, as you may be aware, is forbidden is to be re-exported or sold within the European Union, because it’s the easiest way to transfer the famous BSE disease.

"As far as the famous polish meat issue is concerned, well the problems primarily were not initially with Polish meat as such, but rather with meat and other products posing as Polish meat – transiting Polish territory, and ending up in the Russian market.

"Of course, it was not the Russian side that has been politicising the whole issue."

And the sprats?

What about those Latvian sprats that don’t meet Russian standards but pass EU laws which are often perceived as too tough?

"The fact is, that Russian veterinary and food safety standards are much stricter than those applied in the European Union. But again, nobody should see anything political in it – it’s just public health."

Then to the question behind all of this. Does Russia bully its old allies?

"We believe the problem with the political elite or at least part of it in those countries, and the problem of the EU since those countries acceded to the EU, has been that they are suffering from what is sometimes called phantom pains of the past, some going back to the days of the Soviet Union of which they were part, some going even further to the days of the Russian empire in 18th Century, particularly concerning Poland.

"So I don’t believe that this is the way to address future relations with the new democratic Russia. It only hinders the development of bilateral relations and unfortunately, due to the principle of EU solidarity among members, it hinders the overall development of EU-Russia relations."

The last point is critical. Russia doesn’t like the European Union speaking with one voice, which is precisely the reason politicians from the eastern part of the EU are so keen on it.

We’ll find out on Friday at the summit itself what policy they pursue.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This is the second of three pieces I'm writing in the run-up to this week's EU-Russia summit, as I explain here.

The snub-nosed Russian-built fighter jet squats in the Polish woods, only partly obscured by the trees. It is not the spearhead of an invasion force but a military souvenir of a time when Poland was a key Soviet ally within the Warsaw pact.

Now Poland is in and the European Union, and there is growing friction between the old allies. The Mig sits near the front gates of an airbase which is at the centre of a row between Russia and Poland. The US plan for a or Son of Star Wars, has upset the Russians.

The US is adamant that the shield, a sophisticated link-up of radar and missile systems, is intended to catch missiles in mid-air if launched from places like Iran. But the plan is for the radar to go to the Czech Republic, and the missiles themselves, almost certainly, to this base in Redzikowo.

Light-aircraft club

The mayor of nearby Slubsk is disappointed that the base may be put to this use, rather than turned into a civilian airport and business centre. He’s less worried about the Russian attitude.

As we stand in front of gates of the base, emblazoned with a lightning-strike symbol, he tells me: "For many years we were in Russia or the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, and they haven’t had long to get used to the change. They think the weapons could easily be fitted with nuclear warheads. Opponents here say the same. I think the concern is ungrounded. I hope it is. I want the Americans and Russians to reach an agreement. For us Poles it is important to have good relations with our neighbours, the Russians."

He then takes me to the site where he says the missiles would actually be stored. It’s part of the old airbase, now a pocket handkerchief airstrip rented out to a civilian club of light aircraft enthusiasts.

But the signs of its old purpose are clear. There are five massive hangars at the edge of the field, the size of mansions, their concrete bulk and massive metal doors camouflaged with zigzag slashes of black and olive drab paint.

Trees and bushes are planted along the top to disguise the site from the air. It may seem remarkable that we are allowed to film both here, and the outside of the functioning military base. But the decision to allow the media to photograph Polish bases was taken by a former defence minister, who pointed out that spy satellites can see far more than a TV camera.

Neo-cons

He is also the man who negotiated the outline of missile defence package with the Americans. He’s said to be close to Donald Rumsfeld and the neo-cons and is an enthusiast for the plan. Now an independent senator, Mr Sikorski defends the system that the Russians dislike so much.

"Russia has threatened to target European cities. That makes us feel very uncomfortable, and if anything, it increases our sympathy for the United States. Nato membership was quite controversial in Poland until Russia started to protest loudly, so if they are worried about this project, to threaten is not the way to go about it," he says.

"Russia has testy relations with most of its neighbours – there are economic boycotts against Georgia, against Ukraine, against Estonia, against Poland. We would like to have good relations with Russia – this is a very powerful and rich neighbour of ours. I think I don’t have to explain to the British people, when there are KGB-style poisonings in the streets of London, that we feel even more exposed to this kind of behaviour.

"So we value Nato, perhaps more than countries that don’t share a border with Russia. That’s why we treat the Polish-American relationship so seriously and that’s why we seriously consider American requests."

Buoyant Russia

Poland is seen by many in the EU as an awkward customer.

Their complaints about Russia, like their worries about Germany, are dismissed by some many as a paranoid hang-over from the past. But perhaps now some are taking notice of their experience.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the European Union tended to have had a rather cosy relationship with a weak Russia, still experimenting with capitalism and democracy. Now the situation has altered, and so have some of the personnel. Germany’s former leader, Gerhard Schroeder, used to urge a kid-glove approach to Russia from the centre of the European Union, but not any more - and Angela Merkel is in charge in Berlin. The difference between Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy isn’t quite as stark, but it’s there.

Putin’s Russia is apparently more self-confident, unconcerned about causing offence, buoyed up by its gas and oil revenues. And perhaps critically, the European Union now has many members which have very direct experience of their big nextdoor neighbour.

The Czech Republic and Hungary saw their tentative movements to freedom crushed by Soviet troops. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were swallowed up by the Russian empire. Some might say it’s not fair to equate the Soviet Union with Russia but few in the region would bother making the distinction. Particularly in Poland, which ceased to exist as a country for more than 100 years because of Russian (and Prussian) expansion, long before Lenin.

Symbol of domination

If some are cowed by Russian might, it’s not an attitude you come across much in Poland

At a busy Warsaw intersection by a major tram stop stands a war memorial, known as the four sleepers. Bronze statues, some four or five times larger than life, stand silent guard.

At the top of the monument, the figures are more dynamic, like immense versions of dramatically posed toy soldiers. One figure rushes forward holding a machine gun at waist height, another is charging with a levelled rifle and between them both the third solider holds his arm outstretched behind him, about to hurl a distinctive barrel shaped soviet grenade. As war memorials go, it’s both far more heroic and more impressive than the more sombre monuments in French or English villages.

But the problem is with the inscription, in both Polish and Russian. It reads: "Glory to the Soviet soldiers who gave their lives for Poland’s liberty and independence."

The Warsaw councillor Marek Makuch is campaigning to have it removed, even though a similar relocation of a memorial caused riots in Estonia early this year, and a bitter reaction from the Russian authorities.

As he looks at the monument, he tells me: "We are thinking about moving this monument here to the cemetery of Russian soldiers, because it’s a symbol of the domination of Soviets during and after World War II."

He’s dismissive of any Russian reaction. "They are living in some different world and they still think that Eastern Europe is some part of their dominion," he says.

Energy worries

Poland’s difficulties with Russia are fuelled by history but exacerbated the present. It may be ludicrous for politicians to describe plans from a pipeline to run from Russia to Berlin as a new version of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which secretly carved up half of Europe, but it’s probably true that Poland is being deliberately left out in the cold.

There have been problems with meat transiting through Poland in the past and now the Russians have banned a whole range of Polish products from frozen vegetables to something called fish flour.

Kryzsztof Bobinski of the Poland and the Union foundation, who used to work for the Economist, is a long-term observer of the Polish scene. He says: "Poland sees Russia as a resurgent threat, with Mr Putin at the head of the Russian state, and the Polish people are quite worried. It’s very interesting that some opinion polls were done in 1989, and then in 2006, and it showed that then Poles were not worried about Russia at all because it was not doing very well, and very worried about Germany because it had been reunited."

He goes on: "I don’t think Russia is a country that has come to terms with the fact that its frontiers have been pushed back, making it smaller than it was under the Tsars. Of course, the passing of the Soviet Union is of some regret for Mr Putin, and he has actually done various things in the past few years that would make even the most pro-Russian western European states think twice about what is really going on in Moscow.

"The business with energy supplies, the lack of security of energy supplies, the increasingly authoritarian state in Russia – it seems to be a historic continuum, which means we have to be very careful with Russia."

There are a growing number of countries that sound increasingly like Poland and their voices will be heard at the EU summit. But will they be listened to?

Solidarity

A senior politician from one EU country told me recently that it was a mistake not to see Russia as a European country, and implied that any approach must be based on sympathetic forbearance, not lecturing or demanding.

The veteran leader of the Solidarity movement, Lech Walesa, would not agree.

He told me: “As Europe, as the European Union, we have to show more solidarity with each other. We all have a common interest and it’s only one interest – while Russia will want to win over individual countries. We cannot allow that.

"And tomorrow we will have similar problems with China. And they will also be trying to use individual countries and to dismantle our solidarity. And that’s why, in the name of peace and development, we have to show solidarity, not as states, but as a European continent.”

We will see on Friday. Tomorrrow you can read my report from Lithuania, and Russia's ambassador to the EU will have his say.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This is the first of three pieces I'm writing in the run-up to this week's EU-Russia summit, as I explain here.

When east meets west you get one of the longest traffic jams in the world.

On and off for about 30 miles, lorries line the road, queuing to take their goods from Europe to Russia, occasional knots of drivers standing by their trucks, chatting.

Through the windows of the high cabs, you can catch a glimpse of less animated types snoozing, or watching TV.

The area near the border between Russia and Latvia is a pretty enough place. The leaves of the silver birch are turning from green to gold, and in forest clearings there are small farmsteads, usually just a couple of rather ramshackle wooden buildings

But now portable loos and huge rubbish skips are plonked in front of the farms and the local council has declared a state of emergency. An estimated 1,500 lorries queue along this part of the border on an average day.

It’s 16 years since Latvia became an independent country, rather than a republic within the Soviet Union, but the line of the border with Russia has only just been agreed. Along a six-mile stretch it will have to be moved back about 100 feet, giving more territory to Russia. Latvian politicians say the real reason for the disagreement was that the Russians were trying to put obstacles in the way of Latvia joining the European Union.

Slow going

It has been part of the club for two years now, and while trade with the giant neighbour has increased, so have the tensions. Not that the lorry drivers think there is anything political in their little break from driving. Nikolai, an ethnic Russian Latvian, says he’s been here three days. How does he manage?

“We can cook. There’s gas cooker in our cabin and we’ve got spoons and everything, our whole lives are in our �cabs’. Our wives still love us so we’ve got good borshch, with meat.”

Not everyone is as stoical. Jevenijs Slisans, the executive director of Ludza District Council, says people here have had enough.

“They’re fed up with it. They’re littering all over the road, with all kinds of waste. Local people understandably aren’t happy. We’ve organised a collection but it’s really difficult to be collecting, collecting, collecting. It takes up a lot of money which we don’t always have. It seems on the Latvian side we could increase capacity, we could process more, but the Russian Federation has introduced more thorough checks at the moment, and it’s really slow going through their control points. It’s not clear why the question of organising more border crossing points hasn’t been resolved.”

The lucky driver right at the front of the queues has had time to make himself cosy. In a thick jumper, track-suit bottoms and woolly socks with open-toed sandals, surrounded by cigarette smoke, he’s turned his cab into a nest. He’s been here for five days and says that despite his TV, CB radio and videos, this is the bad part of the journey. When he gets through the nine checks on the borders he’s got another 6,000km to drive. But he’ll be over the worst bit. This wait.

He too doesn’t think the Russian’s are making a point. They just love paperwork. The more paper the better. The European Union is frequently accused of pointless bureaucracy, but for these men it’s a breeze getting through European borders. Russia is more like a breeze block.

History’s captives

It may not help the truckers much, but is pleased the border line is about to be settled.

“It has a historic importance, because for a long time Russia didn’t want to sign the border treaty, because there was hope within some political circles in Russia that not signing the border treaty would hinder our entrance to the EU and Nato. After we succeeded in 2004 in becoming members in these two organisations, we also received an invitation from Putin to sign the border treaty, and now we are at the last stage to complete this task.

“My philosophy, and the philosophy of this government, is that we have to remember history, and we have to learn from history, but we should not become hostages to history.”

It’s hard in this region not to be held captive by history. Latvia won independence from Russia in 1920. After Hitler and Stalin carved up the region, it was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1940. More than 34,000 people were executed or deported. The Germans marched in a year later. The Soviets took it back in 1945.

It is why Russians who arrived after the war are seen as invaders and are required to take a citizenship test. It is one reason why Russia feels that it has vital interests in the region. But one man who was a communist in the dying days of the Soviet Union, indeed represented the party in Latvia’s last Supreme Soviet doesn’t look back towards his old homeland. Yevgeni Drobot told me, “We wouldn’t want to have to rely on the help of Moscow, we think we need to build our life in this state, and not depend on whether Moscow thumps its fist or not. We need to have rights and opportunities here in order to lead a good life here.”

It’s clear that some Latvian still feel they are treated like small fry by their neighbour. is a very fishy place. The smell of sprats and smoke is strong. The little fish are gutted and beheaded by an assembly line of women standing in rows.

They are then transferred to the other side of the factory where they are regularly and expertly strung along long needles. These are then placed on a rack which trundles through a large metal construction. This smoker gives them their unique flavour. After a long drive, and four hours past lunchtime, sitting down in the boardroom to sample of some of their finest smoked sprats, I can see why they are considered such a delicacy and essential party food in Russia. Especially with rye bread.

'Unreliable' partner

But these sprats are banned by Moscow on health grounds. There’s little doubt that smoked food can contain cancer-causing chemicals but there are big question marks about the ways of testing and the levels. These sprats have passed EU regulations, which are often attacked for being too stringent, but failed Moscow’s tests.

The executive director of Brivais Vilnis, Maris Trankalis, has no doubt this is a ploy to allow Russian companies to develop the same skills.

“I think they try to protect their market and therefore they stopped our exports to Russia. And it’s not fair,” he says.

What about Russia generally? He smiles and hesitates, as people in the Baltics do when you ask them that question.

“It’s a big neighbour, and we cannot know what the big neighbour will do tomorrow. But it is not a very reliable business partner.”

He tells me later that he is trying to make up for the lost market by expanding into Western Europe and building up trade with other Baltic countries. He says it’s just not worth doing business with the Russians - it is just too uncertain. It’s such a huge market that few companies will take this line as a matter of policy, but it’s not uncommon to hear people say that Russia is just not worth the hassle and potential loss of trade that can follow a political whim.

The foreign minister, Artis Pabriks, wants the European Union to heed the experience of the Baltic states and particular to stand with them when they have such problems, rather than go chasing after individual advantage with Russian business or government.

He told me: “In my view, Russians are led only by one interest, by national interest. While in the EU we frequently have the philosophy of a value-based policy and that sometimes makes it difficult to take a decision, especially because we don’t have a united foreign policy.

“So, looking from the Latvian point of view it is very important that the EU tries to stick to one foreign policy. We joined the EU in order to see this organisation as a strong one, not a weaker one. And if we are not united it’s just like Benjamin Franklin said, either we hang together or we hang separately.”

Tomorrow, I will write about Poland’s involvement in US plans for missile defence.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Tensions between Russia and Europe have been on the rise this year. Riots over a war memorial in Estonia. Trade disputes between Russia and Poland. Russian bombers back in the air. And these problems are reflected in increasingly fractious summits between the EU and Russia. It may just be a coincidence that these tensions have got worse since the former communist countries which border Russia joined the European Union.

Is it something to do with their experience of their giant neighbour or the reaction of some Russians to what they may see as defection to the other side?

And it is not over yet. While the Soviet Union once extended its power deep into Central Europe, now the EU is toying with allowing membership to countries that have long been considered within Russia’s sphere of influence.

I decided it would be a good idea to have a look at countries along this age-old fault-line.

After all, Russia has been critical to Europe’s history, and not necessarily a force for ill. What would Europe be like if Russia had not crushed Napoleon and Hitler?

It was hard to decide where to go, and I could quite happily have spent the rest of the year travelling this long border. It seems a miss not to go to the Ukraine. Georgia is fascinating. I had a visa ready for Kaliningrad, that little Russian island, landlocked within the European Union. But time and money are limited so this is a limited snapshot. I went to Latvia, Poland and Lithuania. The Russians, in the form of the ambassador to the EU, get their say in the third article.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The champagne glasses were raised and chinked with a flourish as Gordon Brown said to the Portuguese prime minister, "Well done, you’ve done brilliantly. We’re very proud of you."

At 12 minutes past one in the morning, a delighted, smiling Jose Socrates declared that the Treaty of Lisbon would be signed on 13 December.

He declared it a victory for Europe that would take the EU out of a blind alley so that it could play its full role in the world. The commission president, himself a former Portuguese PM, Jose Manuel Barroso, declared himself absolutely delighted and said it was a historic agreement.

So the European Reform Treaty is a done deal. How Gordon Brown coped with the boredom, as others discussed details that were of not of the slightest interest to him, I don’t yet know.

The Bulgarians got the right to write the word "euro" in Cyrillic script.

The Italians have won an extra MEP.

And the Poles, on the brink of a general election, have a complex formula to delay legislation written into a legally binding protocol.

A last-minute hitch cropped up about the date the High Representative for foreign affairs would be appointed. That too was sorted out, so that the European Parliament has a say in the matter.

It's clear that the leaders, including Mr Brown, have an agreed line: the navel-gazing about institutions is over, it's time to move on to things that matter to most people in Europe, like climate change and the economy.

Referendum campaign

But will Mr Brown be allowed to move on?

Moments after the agreement, the shadow Europe Minister Mark Francois said: "In the small hours of the night, Gordon Brown has agreed the revised EU constitution which potentially transfers massive powers from Britain to the EU. He had absolutely no democratic mandate to do this and we will now step up our campaign to secure the referendum which he promised the British people all along."

Mr Brown will face similar demands from UKIP, some trade unions and some Labour MPs, to allow British people a chance to vote on the treaty.

It's absolutely clear that he has no intention of doing so. I can’t quite see what would force him to change his mind.

Prime ministers are only forced into a referendum by massive internal splits or the need to remove a contentious issue from a general election. He's not having a general election for a while and although some Labour MPs want a referendum it doesn’t divide the party.

He calculates that while the Conservatives' charge that he doesn’t trust the people may do some short-term damage, it's unlikely to still be hurting him come the time for an election.

The Sun breathes fire in today’s editorial and threatens to keep up its campaign until the next general election. As it warns that Britain’s existence as an independent sovereign state has been extinguished, I presume it will abandon what it must believe has become the worthless charade of covering Westminster politics, and I look forward to welcoming its political staff as they are all shipped out to Brussels to report on the real action.

Scotland? Denmark?

While there are plenty of arguments - many expressed in replies to my postings here - why he SHOULD give a referendum, I've yet hear or read one convincing me that he WILL.

I suspect the prime minister's strategy is simple: head down, weather the storm. The issue will, however, surface again and again.

He’ll presumably give a statement to the House of Commons on Monday. Then he'll be back for a signing ceremony before Christmas. There are suggestions that the SNP might force a consultative referendum in Scotland, although I haven't yet checked this out. Some Lib Dem MPs might make it an issue in their leadership contest.

Early next year, the House of Commons will debate the treaty in detail and almost certainly vote on the demand for an election.

Pressure may build for a referendum in Denmark, and perhaps elsewhere. The Irish people will vote, and I have heard rumours British campaigners may help the "No" campaign there. But the odds are against such upsets.

I would never rule out a surprise. But by early summer Mr Brown can reasonably expect the treaty to be adopted in all 27 members of the European Union. After that he is probably out of the woods, unless there is some big and obvious European Union policy that allows campaigners to say, "We warned you."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It seems as if a deal has been done although that isn't official yet.

The Italians get an extra MEP, and the total number of MEPs is increased by one, so no-one else loses out.

The Poles get something like the protocol they wanted, spelling out that in exceptional cases member states can delay a plan, even if they don't have the full number of votes needed to stop it.

The leaders are now back in a final session to tie all this together.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Victory to the Bulgarians! I hear that they have won their battle to have the word "euro" represented in Cyrillic script.

Some of you thought I was making light of this demand earlier. Not a bit of it. It seems perfectly sensible to me to be able to write your future currency the way you are used to. But it wasn't until a diplomat whipped out a tattered five-euro note that I realised that every note has the word in Latin and Greek script.

The Austrians have also settled, although I don't know what the deal was. But the Italians and Poles are digging in their heels.

The Portuguese foreign minister says there is a will to reach a deal tonight, but I am pessimistic about the prospect of reaching my bed at a reasonable time. Given that there is a general election in Poland this weekend, I cannot see that they will give in easily.

If the EU's leaders are kept waiting by the Poles it won't be a first. There was an ironic outburst of applause from some of the most powerful men and women in Europe as the Polish president turned up to the family photo - the rest of them had all trooped down together and had been waiting for 10 minutes or so.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

are feeling deflated. Not by the prospect of Brown agreeing the - the hyperactive pressure group cum think tank's Lisbon stunt quite literally didn't get off the ground.

Their giant inflatable ballot box didn't inflate. The generator they'd hired didn't have enough puff. They swear it's not symbolic and will try later again in the day.

Meanwhile, Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said: "Of course, we regret that it was necessary to have some opt-outs for some countries. But we respect this. We prefer to have a solution that's broadly agreed, with some specific opt-outs for some countries, than not to move forward. Britain has negotiated very hard some opt-outs on some specific issues. Now we don't expect any more requests in that area."

He added: "We should respect these lines that were put forward by Britain, so I think there will be no more difficulties. I hope that we will have a consensus today or tomorrow on the Reform Treaty."

Gordon Brown is due to go to the meeting this afternoon before the summit proper opens - something Mr Blair never did as prime minister.

He might be glad to know that Socialist leader in the European Parliament Martin Schulz who's just said: "The papers owned by an Australian and a Canadian want to destroy the European Union."

BREAKING NEWS: Open Europe have got it up.

Their ballot box, that is.

And the Prime Minister's spokesman has conceded that Gordon Brown's talk about holding a referendum over the treaty if he vetoed it, didn't really make sense. But he said the treaty was necessary to make Europe work efficiently.

He declined to give detailed examples.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

When Gordon Brown meets his fellow leaders in Lisbon it will be his first appearance on the European stage as prime minister. He’s got lovely weather for it.

The centre in Lisbon is a delightful combination of aircraft hangar, flying saucer and assorted right angles. He might as well try to enjoy it while it lasts. Because he knows many pundits and politicians are preparing to throw brickbats, not bouquets, when it’s all over.

He arrives around tea-time for the first session, which is due to last a couple of hours. Then the leaders go into dinner to continue discussions. I’m told Mr Brown thinks the can all be wrapped up by the time the petits fours arrive. You can tell it’s his first EU summit.

Navel-gazing

This hugely controversial treaty is the replacement for the European Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago.

Supporters say it’s a set of modest rule changes to allow the European Union to work better, now the organisation is so much bigger. Critics say it’s a further extension of power to Brussels and an erosion of the nation state.

Among the main proposals:

• More cash, staff and a beefed-up role for the EU’s High Representative for foreign policy

• A new job of President of the Council in charge of running meetings like this one

• Dropping countries’ right to veto policies in scores of areas – many are technical, others include tourism and space policy

• A change in countries voting powers which the government says will give Britain slightly more clout

• A bigger role for the European Commission in the area of policing and justice, although Britain can choose not to take part

Like Mr Brown, hope it will all be wrapped up, if not signed and sealed, by the end of tonight’s dinner. But there are a few difficult issues to clear up and if they can’t reach agreement they’ll scrap Friday’s planned session on the challenges of globalisation.

The prime minister of Portugal, Jose Socrates, has told his fellow leaders that reaching agreement on a final text is the challenge for the meeting and is of fundamental importance for Europe. Agreeing it, he says, will mean that Europe can concentrate on other issues and do so with more efficiency.

Mr Brown has written a letter to Mr Socrates agreeing that the Reform Treaty sets a framework that will ensure the enlarged EU can function well.

“This is the right time to bring to an end to this prolonged period of inward-looking institutional debate,” he says.

Earlier this week, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that agreement would mean that Europe can stop “navel-gazing about institutions” and concentrate instead of things people care about, like cutting crime and economic competitiveness.

“That means we will preserve Britain’s right to choose on key issues but also that we make sure Europe starts embracing a new agenda of issues like climate change that really matter to people.”

So the line is clear.

Schmoozer

But shadow foreign secretary William Hague has warned: “Gordon Brown has absolutely no moral or democratic mandate to force through the renamed EU constitution without a referendum.”

Tony Blair often found these meetings something of a chore, but he was a born schmoozer who saw himself as master negotiator (though some who worked with him wouldn’t agree).

Brown prides himself on being tougher and more rigorous than his predecessor but he’s not a born compromiser. As chancellor he was notoriously impatient with the slow grind of euro-politics, allegedly taking his headphones off ostentatiously while other lesser mortals spoke. (Maybe he is a better linguist that we realised and didn’t need the simultaneous translation. Somehow I doubt it.)

At Lisbon, he’d be wise to keep his headphones on, even though he might be tempted to remove them if the discussion on gets too intense.

I had half-expected Mr Brown to engineer an easily winnable row that he could sell as defending Britain’s interests, so he could come home, if not exactly in triumph, with something that could be portrayed as a British victory.

There is absolutely no sign that this is going to happen. British diplomats don’t expect it and neither does anyone else. It seems the strategy, such as it is, is to get it over with and weather the storm.

Back in Westminster, hacks may ask if he’s managed to safeguard his red lines, but people shouldn’t be under any illusions. The red lines are not under attack. No-one has suggested they should be changed, altered or amended. It is simply not on anyone’s agenda. British diplomats are quite clear that they are happy with the deal on the table.

Juggernaut

So if this turns out to be a nail-biting late-night summit it will almost certainly be other countries that create the drama.

The most serious issue may be the

The Poles are also still insisting that a complex formula on voting weights and powers to delay legislation is written into the treaty itself and not left in an annex.

Other issues may seem even more obscure, such as Austrian concerns about too many German students in their universities (and the Bulgarian worry about how the word “euro” is written).

But the atmosphere within the room for the next couple of days will be a restful Zen-like calm for Mr Brown, compared to the reception he can expect outside the hall after the meeting.

Already the think tank/pressure group is in town with an inflatable and gigantic ballot box, to demand a referendum. leader Nigel Farage is here too, eager to have his say.

Why is this treaty so controversial?

Partly because it’s a replacement for the European constitution, which was rejected by Dutch and French voters in referendums two years ago.

Critics, and indeed some fans, say it’s pretty much the same thing. They are right, in that nearly all the rule changes that were in that document will be in this one too.

They see it as a symbol that the EU goes in one direction like a juggernaut and won’t take No (or even two No's) for an answer.

The UK government (and the French and Dutch governments) argue that it’s not a constitution because it’s no longer called one, it doesn’t look like a constitution, references to flags and anthems are out and other linguistic changes have been rejected: the high representative won’t get to be called EU foreign minister, and EU directives won’t be re-christened “laws”.

Trickery and window-dressing, say the opponents.

They say Labour promised a referendum on the constitutional treaty and this is no different.

The government reply is that not only is it not a constitution, it is a different document for Britain than for the other 26 countries because of a series of opt-outs and clarifications. These are their “red lines”.

Ministers argue these stop the European Union wandering into no-go areas like foreign policy, social security, the courts and policing, and stop the charter of fundamental rights effecting British law.

Mr Hague says: “The foreign policy red line is meaningless, the criminal justice red line is already broken, the tax red line was only ever a con and the so-called opt-out from the damaging Charter of Fundamental Rights is the classic Maginot line because the European Court of Justice can just walk around it.”

The dark side

But everybody expects this summit to result in an agreement.

And as I said above, Gordon Brown’s strategy appears to be put his head down, weather the storm, take the blows.

In Brussels, at least, people say with a sigh: “This government won’t make the argument on Europe”.

They mean that there will be no attempt to sell British involvement as a positive thing, rather than always going on about what has been stopped.

I suspect Mr Brown simply sees no advantage in talking about the EU: it incenses some voters, and leaves others cold.

But he doesn’t seem especially frightened of it as a political weapon either. Privately, senior figures are dismissive of the newspapers campaigning for a referendum, saying that more people declared their religion to be “Jedi” in the last census than signed

But the campaigners do see themselves as paladin battlers against the dark side, and their campaign will move up a gear after this weekend.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

To read newspaper stories of EU bullying and Britain's red lines collapsing you would think that the British delegation to Luxembourg would be in a ferment.

Not a bit of it. Britain has hardly entered the debate on the treaty except to endorse it.

Portugal's Europe Minister, Manuel Lobo Antunes, told me in a news conference: "The UK is happy with this text. They made an important intervention in favour of the treaty, so I don't see any major problems."

There has been one minor change. The Foreign Office has managed to remove the word "shall" from a passage about national parliaments' obligations to support the European Union.

But most of the debate has been about and

My feeling is that this is very much a done deal as far as Britain is concerned, but we will have to wait and see if Gordon Brown feels the need to thump the table in Lisbon for purely domestic reasons.

But the Foreign Office people here are adamant the deal they have is good for Britain.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I’m off to Luxembourg and what Jack Straw used to call the padded cell.

Today’s meeting of foreign ministers could flag up any last minute hitches or objections to the European which will be the main topic on the agenda at this week's summit. It takes place and will be the first time prime ministers and presidents of the other 26 EU states see Gordon Brown in action as boss.

But this regular foreign ministers' meeting is fascinating for another reason. Both critics and fans of the new treaty agree that one of its main aims is to extend the reach and clout of the European Union in the world. It will be easier for the EU to sign treaties, it will have a beefed up who will not be called foreign minister, but will combine the Javier Solana’s current role with that the That will give him much more cash and a staff of at least 5,000 in

But look I’m interested in whether you think it’s already too much, or too little. about relations with the following countries:

• - a "step change" in EU involvement, involving more humanitarian aid and training

• - possibility of a new statement backing UK demands for the extradition of Litvinenko’s suspected killer

• - plans for tougher sanctions

• - plans for sanctions against the gem and timber industry

• - report on talks about the status of Kosovo

• - increase in number of EU border police

• - a new military force to guard refugee camps

The British government is particularly enthusiastic about the first four. It’s been urging more engagement in Iraq ever since the end of the war but it’s only become possible after a change of heart, and government, in France.

The Russians were furious about and have made it quite clear that this should be a matter between them and the UK alone. Mikhail Kamynin, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Britain should not seek to raise the issue further at EU level.

"Moreover, in London they should clearly realise that such provocative actions masterminded by the British authorities will not go without an answer, and cannot but entail the most serious consequences for Russian-British relations," he added.

So British diplomats think an EU statement hits harder than anything they can do on their own.

Doing the detailed work identifying new targets for sanctions in Burma and Iran is also British policy.

This, to me, is interesting. It is clear what some of the smaller countries get by being part of a in a grouping that includes France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK. But the British government also thinks that it exercises more clout in the world when acting as There’s little sign of the UK, at this meeting at least, being dragged down any road it doesn’t want to travel along.

But would this be better done by agreement among the bigger, more powerful countries? Does having Malta and Slovakia on board make any difference?

Clearly, many British people instinctively recoil at the idea of the EU expanding its foreign policy role, and feel it must be at the expense of Britain’s national interest.

But is it in fact those who are arguing for a re-think who would damage Britain national interest, in the name of sovereignty?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Barroso has made challenging Britain to properly engage in Europe.

He says: "I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent.

"I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK. With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe."

He argues nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that European integration leads inexorably to a superstate. All the EU is doing is building up the confidence and capacity for countries to work together when there is a common interest, he says.

He adds: "This paints a very different picture from the caricature of the European Union as a distant elite trampling on diversity with endless diktats on harmonisation."

He also defends the role of the European Commission in a way that I often hear in Brussels but I rarely see debated in the British media . So I will quote him at some length:

"Some of my friends, including here in Britain, say that they can live with the idea of Europe, but think Europe is obsessed with institutions. The key to Europe, they say, is the market. Well, there can be no markets without institutions. Markets need rules. It's as simple as that. And to run a market, across 27 countries, you of course need effective institutions. Those who want to reduce the EU to a market don't even understand markets. You can't run a market stall without rules.

"Let's be frank - it would be impossible to run a single market in Europe without a strong commission, without a strong Court of Justice. And you can forget free and fair competition as well. That is why, let's be clear, we need a legal framework which allows Europe to function properly. And that's what the institutional debate was all about. We needed to ensure that a system created for six member states is capable of functioning more effectively for a Europe of 27 member states and more."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Merkel made it a priority. So did Sarkozy. Within days of being elected the leaders of Europe’s two most important countries made sure they went to Brussels to talk to the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.

In Paris or Berlin that’s not a problem. It doesn’t look like paying homage to "Brussels" but like powerful politicians taking their rightful roles as helmsmen of a continent. But Prime Minister Gordon Brown hasn’t been to the EU’s capital yet, and he’s not planning to come here until the summit in December.

Some think this is a snub, and Mr Brown isn't particularly bothered. So instead President Barroso is going to Downing Street to see him. They both want next week’s summit in Lisbon to see an end to an intense bout of navel-gazing, and presumably both know it won’t.

In practice, it means they want to get the signed off with the minimum of fuss. Well, not actually signed off. The signing won’t come until that December summit. I understand the leaders may be asked to initial a document in Lisbon, so they have their monikers attached to a piece of paper without having formally “signed up” to the treaty.

Anglo-Saxon agenda

This nicety aside, Brown and Barroso are keen that there is as little messing about as possible. Despite the critical report by the British parliament’s Scrutiny Committee, demanding more “safeguards” for Britain, Brown is pretty happy that he’s got what he wanted. His argument will be that even if the treaty isn’t very different from the constitution for most countries, it is for Britain, because the opt-outs make it different.

If it will be a relief to Mr Barroso that the prime minister is not going to be a problem, the two will want to make sure others don’t raise objections either. The first cloud on the horizon is the possibility of the Poles kicking up a new fuss. The other problem could be a plan to redistribute seats in the European Parliament - with the Italians, French and the British losing out. Mr Brown isn’t worried about a handful of MEPs losing their jobs, but he doesn’t want the row about the treaty to drag on because of it.

The two Mr Bs are united in one thing at least - they both frequently make statements on the need to push Europe further down a free-market, high-competition road. At this meeting, they may both be asking each other to put their money where their mouth is. It may not be the stuff of headlines, but how much the French can force a retreat from the Anglo-Saxon economic agenda may be the real story behind next week’s Lisbon summit.

Gordon Brown will want to make sure that the commission’s contribution to the summit, sticks to its commitment that "protectionism cannot be the solution". There are some concerns that when it says "the political case for openness can only be sustained if others reciprocate in a positive manner" it is in fact opening the door to all sorts of policies which are lightly disguised trade barriers.

Barroso wants Brown’s clout to help push the commission’s energy package - which would mean dismantling giant energy companies in France and Germany, and is already meeting fierce resistance in those countries. While this is very much up Brown’s street, British diplomats are unsure whether we’ve currently got the clout to make much difference. When Brown took his promotion there was a fair bit of comment around, pointing out that he didn’t play the EU game particularly well, due to a tendency to lecture other European leaders on how they should be running their economies. It seems the commission may be asking Mr Brown to get his soap box out and start lecturing.

They’d like him to do it at home as well. The commission is constantly frustrated that British politicians rarely challenge the common British perception (very much reflected in ) that European Union proposals are almost always things that need to be weakened and watered-down, in case they do the UK irreparable damage. They point out, with some justification, that the policies that will get the most attention over the next few months - energy and competition - could have "Made in Britain" stamped on their bottom. Whether or not it will be diplomatic to say it face-to-face, Barroso would like Brown not only to shape EU policy behind the scenes but also to talk about it in public.

Engaging Muslims

But Brown’s biggest worry is a cold wind from France that threatens to freeze the EU in its current pattern.

The British government has always traditionally championed an expanding European Union and Brown is no different. Keeping the door open for Turkey is a key aim of British foreign policy, and Brown is seriously worried that this is now under threat.

I’m told he argues that there are three phases in the European Union project to create stability on the continent. The first was establishing democracy and prosperity after the war. The second was reuniting Europe after the iron curtain came down. But the third phase has only just started. That is to engage Muslims within Europe, both within existing borders, but also by making welcoming noises to Turkey, Albania and depending what happens there, Kosovo.

The French President Nicholas Sarkozy wants to put the kybosh on this. He’s demanding that the European Union sets up a group of "wise men": a dozen senior statesmen to examine what Europe should look like in 10 to 20 years' time. That translates not too roughly as “Stop Turkey!” and

Mr Sarkozy is threatening to block further detailed technical talks with Turkey if he doesn’t get his way. Mr Brown wants to put the wise men on the back burner, if that isn’t too unappealing a mixed metaphor. In fact I think it’s rather an appealing one.

Brown had another interesting visitor to Downing Street, the Danish prime minister. As it was "photos only" we didn’t hear from them after the meeting. But it would have been odd if they didn’t share at least a wry smile about referendums. The Danish PM is under new pressure, after an interview in with the leader of the Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

As I reported a few weeks ago, Neil Kinnock’s daughter-in-law has been under some pressure to throw her weight behind calls for a refrendum in Denmark. While she hasn’t quite done that, she has challenged the government’s contention that it’s a matter for the lawyers. She says, “This is also a political assessment,” and, “We were at no point in doubt that the former draft constitution should be subjected to a referendum. We would like to look at the new treaty and do a similar evaluation.”

Both men will be aware that if they budge they could create "negative feedback" in the European system and keep eyes focused on euro navels for a while longer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A hornets' nest indeed, Max. I seem to have upset a number of you by putting the case of some Russians in Latvia. First, a correction.Yevgeni Drobot is not banned from Latvian politics because he was a member of the 1991 Latvian Soviet, as he told me, but because he was a member of the Communist Party and represented them in that Soviet. I don't think this merits Peteris' description of a lie.

Another point of fact: Yes, there are now Latvian sprats in Moscow supermarkets, as Dmitry points out. They were all banned for a while but the ban is now only on the two top exporters of the fish: the company I visited was the largest exporter.

But what about accusations of bias? It's true that all the quotes were from one side of the argument, but the reasons for Latvian position have been, I think, set out clearly, and are pretty obvious. I am not a great fan of the sort of "stopwatch" balance that would have one believe that there are only two sides to every argument and that having a representative of each speak for the same length of time achieves fairness. Like all my work, I hope this blog meets the Â鶹ԼĹÄ's highest standards and values, but those who are unhappy do raise an interesting series of questions about the nature of blogging.

A fragment

At the risk of being boring I'll go into the nuts and bolts in some detail. But before I go on, those interested in journalistic ethics generally might enjoy reflecting

Anyhow, my postings don't run, I hope, to a format. Sometimes they are little more than a random thought, on occasions an expanded version of a TV or radio piece, others will be reflections on a news item that won't make it elsewhere, and yet others will be an odd incident on my travels. I'm keen to make then even more varied, using pictures I have taken and audio I have recorded.

In this particular instance, this post and a previous one from Latvia were spin-offs from a series of radio and TV reports I am preparing. They should be broadcast in the week beginning 22 October, in the run-up to the EU-Russia summit. I'll be writing at least threee articles based on them, that will be published here. This gives me a slight problem. I can either not blog at all when I am preparing such future reports, or try to find slightly different angles.

Ironically, one of the reasons I wanted to interview these Russian-speakers was in the interests of balance. I was encountering a very negative view of Russia and wanted to put this in context. Before the final pieces are out there, in whatever form, I will be interviewing the Russian ambassador to the EU, to get his side of the story.

These Russian Latvians will probably feature in one report for a minute or less, as a brief illustration of why Russia feels it should have some say in the Baltic States. I had a lot more material than that at my disposal, which I found rather interesting.

Had I being doing a radio or TV piece solely on the Latvian citizenship test, I would, as a matter of routine, have interviewed a Latvian minister or pundit defending the tests and a Russian who was glad to take the test, or something along those lines.

But that is not the purpose of these interviews. In an incredibly hectic schedule, I didn't have the time to find such voices for just one posting. I am much happier putting out this selection of voices I have heard than ignoring them. As I see it, by its very nature, a blog is sometimes a fragment, a report of one afternoon's encounter, rather than a completely rounded product.

Conversation with you

But there is another way that a blog is different. It is a conversation. Nobody putting the Latvian view? Well, only scores of your voices, more varied than I could have collected in a week of interviews. And many putting the opposite point of view with far more vehemence than anyone in my original article. This is certainly not to argue that a blog exists outside the Â鶹ԼĹÄ's basic rules. But I think it is obvious that more dissenting voices can go into a five-part documentary series than a 30-second voice-piece, and the same goes for written articles.

As for it being "intellectually dishonest" to compare the citizenship test with that in other countries, I couldn't disagree more. It was intended to be intellectually provocative, to make people in other parts of the world think what the tests are really about. Indeed, I found the among the most interesting contributions those that compared the situation to whites in post colonial Africa and, introducing a very different perspective, American soldiers in Iraq. Another very perceptive point that a number of people made was to compare the situation to Ukraine, arguing that without the test Latvia too would be constantly torn in two directions.

As a long-term Â鶹ԼĹÄ journalist, I hope fairness and balance are in my blood, and inherent in that is reflecting a whole range of opinions and giving you an insight into how other people think, however infuriating some of you will find that.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Helpful bunch the Their report on the questions, perhaps even undermines, just about all Heaven knows what are coming to. In my days in Westminster there would have been trips to St Lucia here, a murmured word about a knighthood there, and perhaps the odd broken arm. At any rate, it’s rare for a Labour-dominated committee (nine out of ) to produce a report quite so unhelpful to the government.

The veteran Eurosceptic is on the committee and perhaps his always detailed analysis went on so deep into the night that he penned the whole thing while the others slumbered. The headline is that the MPs of the European Scrutiny Committee find that the European Treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution.

Damning

True, they pull their punches in the end. While they conclude that the treaty is pretty much the same as the constitution (or "hated constitution" if you have a keyboard and press F3) it adds that this is true for those countries without opt-outs. As Britain does have them you might think this is of little consequence. But read on, and it’s damning.

They say they understand why the government wants to distance itself from the old constitution but add, "We would wish to explore the reality and significance," of this approach, adding that it could be "misleading". They say it is up to the government to prove that the new treaty is "significantly different" from the old constitution, adding that despite the British opt-outs "we are not convinced". They demand that the government spells out what battles it has won to make the treaty so different for the UK.

It doesn’t stop there. They question the worth of Britain’s opt-outs and clarifications. They say they are “concerned” that the treaty will mean changes that will increase the EU’s powers over national law and so national governments. They want our government to state what safeguards it has against this.

They then go on to be "concerned" that European courts will gain greater rights over UK law. They pick two examples and suggest that Britain might face tougher laws on the length of the working week and on discrimination (they seem to assume that this would be a bad thing) and want “concrete evidence” that this won’t happen.

No negotiation?

They highlight what the Conservatives call the "ratchet clause": a change that would mean that an agreement of all governments could mean the abolition of the national veto from a certain area of policy, without the need to call a special summit. They again ask for the government to spell out its safeguards against what they call a “further erosion of transparency and accountability”.

They criticise the lack of transparency in the negotiating process and suggest the government was "bounced" because a draft text was produced just a couple of days before the summit, apparently without any negotiation. I think here they either deliberately or accidentally misunderstand both what happened and a fairly obvious difficulty for governments.

The didn't hold formal negotiations with a text on the table. Instead they showed relevant parts to the very senior civil servants from each country. I know for a fact that at that stage the exchanges were detailed, and in Britain’s case were discussed with Tony Blair.

It was a rather clever sort of negotiation that didn't allow 25 other countries chip in every time the Germans reached an agreement on an idea or form of words. The committee would like Parliament to have been more fully informed at this stage.

I certainly wouldn’t relish being the foreign secretary who stood up to say: "We’re telling the Germans we’re not giving up any vetoes, but of course that’s not our real position, we’ll stick out for justice and home affairs, but even that depends on what we can get on foreign policy, which is our real bottom line." To then return to the poker game would not be easy.

'Sloppy'

Like all good parliamentarians everywhere these MPs are most concerned about their own rights and save their full fury for a suggestion that parliaments could be legally bound to "contribute actively to the good function of the union". They call this "objectionable". Although the clause is specific, and wouldn’t for instance prevent Parliament voting to withdraw from the Union, one can see their constitutional point.

This report turns up the heat on the government, but does it have any real effect?

The words "Jon Cunliffe" are rather spat in Brussels these days. He’s Gordon Brown’s top civil servant dealing with the EU and he’s ordered diplomats and lawyers to tighten up what he apparently regarded as a rather sloppy document.

If Mr Brown wants to make a fuss at this will strengthen his hand. Perhaps the whips aren’t so wet after all.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The referendum campaigners’ last best hope has just vanished. Not that those who want a referendum on the European will shut up shop and go home. Far from it. The campaign will intensify and reach something of a peak over the next few weeks. And perhaps that is at least one reason why their moment may have passed.

I’m writing of course about Gordon Brown’s Had he decided to “bring it on” there was a slim chance that he might just have promised a referendum to remove the subject from an election. Some politicians in Britain do believe in referendums for their own sake. Mr Brown is not one of them, and as a rule of thumb prime ministers in the UK only offer referendums to remove an issue from an election, or to solve internal party strife. Brown didn’t want a referendum and I personally didn’t think he would be pushed. But it was just possible. Now I can see no reason why he would grant one.

The election would have been fought against the background of a European Union summit that would have been held two weeks before polling day. It would have been a real headache for Mr Brown. Would he go to Lisbon and make a fuss that most would realise was rather drummed up for domestic reasons? Would he snub an important summit on grounds of the election, laying himself open to charges he was ignoring vital British interests? Would he have gone and agreed to the treaty and laid himself open to the wrath of and ? It would be inevitable that for a few days at least Europe would be at the top of the election agenda. And no-one, not the cleverest strategist, politician or journalist, can really guess how an issue would play after that. It could just fade and be replaced by a row about taxation or health. But it could run, on and off, right up to polling day, poisoning the atmosphere.

The were going to make Europe an election issue. One source told me it would be among their top five or six issues. William Hague is scarred by the failure of his “Save the Pound” election and would have been cautious. But it would be easy to raise the issue of trust and easy to sum up several complex arguments about the treaty as “He’s giving more power to Brussels”. It occurred to me that perhaps this was an important factor in not holding an election. It wouldn’t of course be the only one, or main one, but it would have been part of the mixture that could have turned toxic for the Prime Minister. I see suggests not only the Murdoch press but the man himself may have played a vital role in shaping Mr Brown's decision.

The whole affair will mean that we will know even less in the future about the decision-making process in government. You just can’t tell the children that you might decide something. They need certainty when mummy and daddy have had their private discussions. The whole affair shows how little room politicians have to think. They can’t be allowed to semi-publicly mull over a decision.

There is little doubt that of an early election and getting journalists to write it up. But we hacks are obsessed by dates. One reason: journalism is about facts, making the unknown known. But elections also directly effect our lives, with weeks of intense work, plans cancelled, weekends put to one side, and so when they are is a matter of intense personal interest.

But it is also true that the media needs this narrative. For some reason they fell for the line that this stunningly cunning politician would be a low-octane charisma-less failure as PM. When he wasn’t, they were more impressed by the image shift than they should have been. So they need a reason to This is it. I rather think it will have put Mr Brown off speculation about votes in general, and that goes for a referendum too.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Father Ivan Zhilko slowly and lovingly lights the candles in front of the 17th Century icons. We are in the church of St Nicholas of the Resurrection and the Birth of the Virgin Mary, in Pushkin Street. But we are not in a Russian town, we are in , in the south-east of Latvia.

After Riga, it's the biggest city in the country and the vast majority of its population are Russian-speakers of Russian origin. Many of them feel they're victimised, denied citizenship by a state punishing them for the sins of the past.

Citizenship tests to shut out the linguistically challenged and insufficiently culturally aware are all the rage all over Europe, including Britain, but they are perhaps more controversial here than anywhere else. Here the aliens are their former conquerors, liberators, partners.

Father Ivan and most of his congregation don't have to worry. They are a group of Christians who broke away from the Russian Orthodox church after the tsar backed changes to rituals some 300 years ago. They fled to Latvia then, and so have been here ages. When Latvia became independent in 1991, citizenship was automatically granted to anyone whose family arrived here before 1940. People who arrived from Russia after that are regarded as part of an illegal occupation, and their loyalty to the new state is questioned. but who can't vote.

This earnest, bearded young priest tells me: "The majority of Old Believers are citizens, but of course there are non-citizens as well, because during the Soviet era people came here from all over the USSR. When that monster was destroyed, those people stayed here. And prevented them automatically becoming citizens. Most of them are older people and it's difficult for them to take exams. They've demonstrated their loyalty by staying here for the last 15 years: anyone who wants to go back to the old homeland has already done so."

He adds that there is no racial tension and no-one cares what language you speak at home. But some politicians try to stir things up. "They try to divide society but thank God they haven't succeeded and God willing they won't," he says.

From what I can see through the rain, Daugavpils is a rather drab town with fair share of grim concrete flats and half-dug-up tramlines. But the upper room where the Russian Association meets is bright, laid out for a welcome cup of tea, the walls lined with exuberant amateur art.

On a mantelpiece, a Russian flag stands incongruously alongside a model of a blue plastic pig. Grigori Gontmakher took the citizenship test last year, when he was 69. He was born in St Petersburg and came to Latvia after serving in the Soviet army in the late 1980s. His sister was living here and said there were good jobs.

He says he was active in the movement for independence and feels insulted by the way he's been treated. He was a press officer for the local council and some people thought it was wrong that he wasn't a citizen, so he decided to take the test. He says the test is easier for people over 65, otherwise he wouldn't have passed.

"I found it very difficult because although I understood some Latvian I don't speak it day to day. The first thing you have to do is learn the national anthem by heart. Not only to learn it, but to write it down word for word. Then you have to read a text in Latvian and answer questions about it.

"Then you have to take a test about the constitution and Latvian history. We had to answer questions about the birth of the nation, Latvia's national heroes, the wars the country was involved in, what happened during World War II, after the war, and the period of independence."

Without knowing exactly which answers get a tick and which get a cross, it's hard to be sure - but this certainly could be a test of ideological purity, or at least of whether someone subscribes to a certain view of history.

There are those who want a simple history test for British immigrants as well, and it would be interesting to know if they would require answers that were not only factually correct but also demonstrated a certain attitude. Would it be good enough to know that Wellington fought at Waterloo, or would one have to be convinced that Napoleon was in the wrong?

Yevgeni Drobot would be excluded from Latvian political life even if he took and passed the test. That's because he was a member of Latvia's Soviet-era parliament, and so can't stand for the new, post-independence parliament. Instead he's an assistant to an MEP. He's also a non-citizen. He too was born in St Petersburg but arrived in Latvia in 1947, a babe in arms. He says the state is trying to give the Russian population here a guilt complex about the aftermath of World War II, in which Latvians fought on both sides.

He says he got his passport when he was 16 from the Soviet state, but in 1991 he was stripped of his rights. "The political elite still want to get their own back on us," he says.

Another non-citizen, Vladimir Abrazovich, chips in: "It's not just me, there were 600,000 of us. The political elite are scared of giving us the right to vote because they are scared of losing power."

Yevgeni agrees. "The problem is not with everyday social life. The problem is that they are trying to drive us away form political activity. It's discrimination," he says.

But perhaps what officials are worried about is revealed by his answer, when I ask if he feels he is being blamed for the evils of the Soviet Union.

"I don't believe that after the war this country was damaged. A lot was developed here. So you can't talk about the Soviet Union damaging Latvia, most of the people here don't think that way. Quite the reverse, there was a lot of development and in fact production has dropped from the levels of the 80s."

His is an unfashionable view and one that ignores occupation and oppression. But is an understandable anxiety about language being used as an excuse to exclude those with such awkward views from politics?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The latest version of the European treaty has been agreed in French and it's now with the translators.

The lawyers have been hammering out the exact wording to be used. We had expected the document a couple of weeks ago but apparently the British had quibbles. As far as I can see, they were pretty political rather than strictly technical, trying to pin down things that opponents of the treaty might leap upon. One was to do with the authority of the courts over domestic law and another about the status of "mixed" treaties, which could be considered under the banner of trade or foreign affairs.

There has been some irritation at the British behaviour and the says the British government should be well pleased. That may of course be all spin, designed to make it look as if Gordon's people have won another stunning victory over grudging foreign chaps.

All eyes will be on Gordon Brown for the next few days. The Westminster gossip about an early election is blowing hard in Brussels, with people wondering what the fallout will be. Some of my colleagues back in Blighty are adamant that if Brown goes to the country in the autumn, he will give in to demands for a referendum.

in a very pointed way ("Shame if any of your beautiful election strategy got smashed, ohh sorry Mr Brown what a pity!") reports every story through the prism of its desire for a referendum. This may have confused its readers but certainly the politicians got the message. It's one of those curiosities of life that the tabloids, a byword for giving the punters whatever they want, actually employ highly-skilled political teams, not so much to inform their readers as to demonstrate the power of the editors and owners.

Mr Brown will draw his own conclusions. Politicians are surprisingly good at finding solutions to immediate problems while filing their consequences under "future". Certainly, an early election is the best chance the pro-referendum campaigners have got.

But I haven’t quite convinced myself. The government has put so much effort into that I don't quite believe it will do a U-turn. Labour holds a strong belief that when the Conservatives put Europe at the centre of a campaign they look mad and unelectable.

I’m not sure, with the right campaign, that this is true but it’s a strong perception in the Labour hierarchy, who still fall about in laughter at the thought of This time they think it would be "Save the Brown". An election victory would allow the reinvigorated PM to "do a Sarkozy" and claim that his victory put the matter to bed.

But he is not the only player in town. Mr Hague’s announcement that any future Conservative government would promise a referendum on any European treaty change, and indeed would make sure there was a legal trigger, is important. If there was a future Conservative government this would severely limit its room for manoeuvre and that is intentional. Other countries in the European Union would also know that it was pretty futile pressing for any more significant treaty changes, although I get the impression that even the most ardent lovers of internal structural debate have had their fill for the time being.

What of the other countries where a referendum is a possibility? I’m writing this on the road in the Baltics (almost literally, on a dark road back to Riga, finding out my touch-typing isn’t quite as good as I thought) so forgive me if the following titbits are not up the highest standard of Â鶹ԼĹÄ accuracy. I’ll preface them in typical reporter fashion with “I understand,” usually a hint at an exclusive, but in this case simply the state of my understanding, even if incorrect.

The Dutch will debate both the treaty itself and a rather peculiar suggestion that the cabinet would ignore parliament even if it did vote for a referendum. They won’t vote until next Tuesday but it looks as though the Labour and Christian Union MPs will toe their party lines, which suggests strongly that there won’t be a referendum in the Netherlands.

But the Danes, who were waiting for the treaty to be approved by the leaders at the summit later this month may consider it earlier. It seems that the Conservative part of the coalition is putting its weight behind a referendum, despite one spokesperson suggesting that it would be idiocy.

It’s going to be an interesting few weeks, and for what it's worth, the Portuguese presidency doesn’t seem to think that the text will get a smooth ride at the summit.

UPDATE:

The has just issued a statement saying that its lawyers have come to an agreement that safeguards all of Britain's red lines on border control, policing and justice. Rather oddly, it adds that when the text is published in full it will be checked again to make sure it meets the criteria "the prime minister has insisted upon".

The pro-referendum think tank is predicting that if there is a referendum Gordon Brown could either snub the summit, have it delayed or engineer a row.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It’s a factory like none I have ever seen before. Rows of women in gumboots and waterproof aprons stand at their stations, sharp little knives in hands, chopping the heads off tiny silver fishes.

The remains drop down on to a sort of dis-assembly line and end up tipped into a vast bucket of miniature fish heads. No wonder there are so many cats in town.

Over the other side of the factory, women pass long needles through the fish and hang them in ranks, battalion upon battalion of spratus spratus balticus ready to go into the smoking machine.

I’m in Latvia on the Baltic sea, at a firm famous for its smoked sprats. Very tasty they are too. I’m doing some research, and recording TV and radio pieces for a series on relationships between the European Union and Russia, ahead of their summit at the end of the month.

I won’t give too much away, but the question is whether the whale next door is still pushing the minnows around.

Although the company meets strict EU standards, the Russians say there is too much of a certain chemical in the sprats, which are very popular in Russia, and they’ve banned imports.

Everyone at the company is sure that the Russians are just trying to protect their market, and use their economic muscle to show who’s boss.

It’s an interesting story, the downside is, as ever filming in factories, the dress code. In my time, I’ve worn plenty of shower caps while filming in factories, but we do look right sprats dressed in the pale pink robes that are meant to keep the fish hygienic in our presence.

Baltic Knights of the rosy robe? Or a better headline might be “Sprat spat prat”.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Thanks for all your interesting comments about Belgium. Apologies for calling one of the colours in the Belgian flag “gold” rather than “yellow”: it is my come-uppance for being pedantic. In heraldry there is no such thing as “yellow” and the flag derives from the arms of Brabant which are: Sable, a lion rampant or, armed and langued gules (a gold lion on a black background with a red tongue).

Michael makes an interesting point, that my views are very Brussels-centric. Well, it’s true I do live in the city and my perceptions are coloured by my experiences. But in my limited experience, the Flemish outside Brussels are not that much more sensitive about their language. Yes, we all know stories of post offices and town halls where the perfect English speaker requires you to bring a translator but I don’t find that in the shops in those towns.

Perhaps both the French and Dutch speakers deserve more understanding. We British are in a privileged position, speaking what is rapidly become the world’s lingua franca. It’s largely an accident of history, and down to America. I think we would be immensely prickly if we felt our language was under attack.

Doing a regular but random trawl of euro blogs I was tickled by and flag. I suggested the Flemish had more in common with the Anglo-Saxons than with the French. says they would get on better with the English than the Scots do.

A propos of not much, I was struck by something I read this weekend about flamboyant Flems. The book suggested that the Flemish-born Carlos I of Spain introduced a lot of his fellow countrymen to the Spanish court, where they were known for their colourful, extravagant dress.

Derivations of “Flemish” supposedly came to have this meaning, and that is where “flamenco” comes from. Can this possibly be true? I’m somewhat doubtful (“flamboyant” is from “flaming”, not “Flemish”). But if even half-true, it suggests that national stereotypes can rather change over the centuries.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I suppose it is an act of faith, a declaration of purpose, but it always surprises me when senior politicians make bold announcements with no idea of how they are going to turn them into reality. This, it seems, is the case with Gordon Brown’s if they are convicted of dealing drugs to children or having guns.

It was one of those delightful moments that had me chuckling in the kitchen when the Secretary of State for Communities, Hazel Blears, was interviewed on the Today programme.The point was put to her that, given EU law, this wasn’t possible.

She answered that people would like such a law. She found a few figures to quote. She sounded firm and purposeful. Almost. But it was clear she hadn’t got the slightest idea how such a policy proposal would be translated into action.

Certainly, diplomats in Brussels have not been asked to look at ways of squaring such a policy of expulsions with European rules. But is the assumption that expulsions are forbidden under EU law completely accurate?

The reason it could be difficult to expel people from one EU country to another is that the European Union regards the : "Every EU citizen is entitled to travel freely around the Member States of the European Union, and settle anywhere within its territory."

But according to a 2003 directive, nation states are in fact allowed to expel certain categories of undesirables: the 2003 directive specifically singles out those who are "an unreasonable burden on the social security system” and those identified on the grounds of “public policy, public security or public health".

However, Mr Brown’s promise is under greater danger from , which came into force in British law last year. It repeats the grounds for expulsion but says such conduct "must represent a sufficiently serious and present threat which affects the fundamental interests of the state". To many ears, that will sound like planning acts of terror rather than selling weed to 17-year-olds. I could argue that gun crime was a present threat to the fundamental interests of the state, but I bet I would find a judge to disagree with me.

When most people think about this they will remember the recent case of the killer of the headmaster Philip Lawrence, who will be allowed to stay in Britain rather than be returned to his native Italy, when he finishes his prison sentence. But that is because he was five when his parents moved to Britain.

The European directive that allows expulsions also states: “Only in exceptional circumstances, where there are imperative grounds of public security, should an expulsion measure be taken against Union citizens who have resided for many years in the territory of the host Member State, in particular when they were born and have resided there throughout their life.”

The second directive, again, toughens this up. If someone has been in a country for 10 years, they can only be expelled under “exceptional circumstances for overriding considerations of public security”.

It was the that looked at these laws and the and decided the killer should stay.

So will Mr Brown succeed? According to a spokesman for the , he may have a problem. “If the government invokes a clause saying that someone is a threat to national security, then it will be up to British judges, not Brussels, to rule on a case by case basis,” the spokesman says.

Indeed, the problem for Mr Brown is that it is the British appeals system that decides who stays and who doesn’t, not him, not the commission. What is astonishing is that, as far as I can find out, there hasn’t been a single conversation about how this serious policy proposal might be turned into reality.

While I am waiting to hear from the ministers how they plan to keep Mr Brown’s promise, it’s worth reflecting on the value of such expulsions. Aside from .

There is a wider issue here: how far away should we be able to send undesirables? If a Mancunian commits a crime in Macclesfield, they can’t be deported back to Manchester.

But perhaps there is an idea here. The idea of internal exile has a long if equivocal history from Rome to Russia. While is not a sovereign state it is a country, and one with its own laws and If errant Dutchmen could be chucked out of Dover, is it so daft to send Londoners who commit crimes in Glasgow back across the border?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?