Skopje: Beware of Greeks Bearing Vetoes

This weekend's Kathimerini (major Greek national newspaper) reported that U.S Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, and Greek Foreign Minister, Dora Bakoyannis, met to discuss the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (originally Skopje) into NATO.

Currently, Greece is threatening to veto the admission of Skopje unless it changes its name and all other NATO and EU members agree to rescind any previous recognition of Skopje as the Republic of Macedonia, it's chosen name. The new proposal recently put forward by Ms Rice is to change 'Macedonia' to 'New Macedonia' in order to achieve a distinction between Slavic Macedonia, the country, and Greek Macedonia, the region.

Although for many external observers the Greek veto threat may appear childish and to more seriously jeopardise the stability of the Balkans, Greece's defiance is just and long overdue. This is because the now longstanding dispute with Skopje is not simply about a name, but about history, ethnicity, territory and therefore sovereignty.

When Skopje declared its independence in 1991 and adopted the name Macedonia shortly after, it was not simply displaying its admiration of the name or reverence towards the historic Greek Kingdom of Macedon, otherwise known as Macedonia. Rather, it adopted the name on the grounds that they were the true descendants of King Phillip and Alexander the Great and that all Greeks living in the region of Greece known as Macedonia were in fact a foreign minority residing within their territory. They were therefore effectively implying that Greece was occupying its own northern quarter. As a result, they used the original Macedonian flag as their own, insisted their own dialect -which predictably they called Macedonian- was the official language of the historic Kingdom and even usurped entire segments of Greek history including, of course, the reign of Alexander the Great. Indeed, the country's major airport, based in its Capital city, is named after him.

Put simply, anyone who thinks that the naming of Macedonia is no more significant than the naming of Paris, Texas; New England; or even Athens, Georgia consider this. Imagine the reaction of the French if Paris, Texas took the credit for the Enlightenment or the reaction of the English if the people of New England declared themselves the rightful heirs of the legacies of Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill. Similarly, no Greek has a problem with Athens, Georgia because at no point have any of its citizens declared their city as the actual home of Pericles.

However, let us not lose sight of the crude politics involved here. The only reason why NATO is suddenly open to compromise is because they cannot admit Skopje as long as Greece retains its veto, a potentially massive embarrasment for the alliance. Similarly, Skopje needs no persuading in accepting any offer to join and therefore carries litle leverage over the terms of their accession. Greece, therefore holds all the cards. This is not just because of the veto but also because any concerted reconstruction effort in the Balkans depends on Greece's co-operation; poltically, militarily, but most of all economically. As Greece's economy has grown over the years, just as their neighours' have been crumbling around them under the pressures of civil war and internal ethnic strife, Greece has leapt on the opportunity to invest heavily in Balkan reconstruction. As a result, the Hellenic Republic has become the single biggest source of investment in all the new Balkan republics, including Skopje, to the extent that now almost a quarter of all banks in the region are Greek-owned.

So, let us celebrate today as the day Greece finally stood up for itself and defended its sovereignty against those who shamefully claim it for themselves, only to return open handed asking for money and security. And let us celebrate the fact that the good old wooden horse trick still works after all this time and remind those who tried to ignore their grievances to beware of Greeks bearing vetoes.

A Defence of the Surveillance Society

The recent story of the bugging of Siddique Khan MP and the subsequent revelations by the national media that such operations were the norm and in some cases required no more authorisation than the go ahead from a senior police officer, led to the biggest assault on the State's powers of surveillance for quite some time. This furore, however, was not a new debate, but rather the fierce reignition of an ongoing one over the use of surveillance technology by UK security forces. In my position as a press officer for the Association of Chief Police Officers, I strangely found myself caught in the middle of this debate, helping the Police to make the case to the public for increased use of surveillance, whilst my own party, the Liberal Democrats were berating it as an encroachment too far of our civil liberties.

I have traditionally been indifferent to the claims that we are 'sleepwalking' into a surveillance society and have found assertions that we are ultimately headed towards a police state, V for Vendetta style, just plain farcical. However, the debate of security versus liberty and where to draw the line between the two has always fascinated me. This was a debate that last month I was fortunate enough to witness myself when I attended the House of Lords Constitutional committee session on surveillance. There, the three chief police officers responsible for presiding over the Police National Database, the DNA database and the use of CCTV sat before this collection of Peers from all parties and were grilled over the impact of their actions on civil liberties in Britain.

I have no intention of giving a verbatum recital of how this debate went (for anyone interested in the transcript though, see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr.htm#const) but safe to say it helped me to clarify my own position on the issues at stake. The Peers' concerns were far more refined than those of the traditional scare mongers who occupy the most media time such as Liberty. They have always frustrated me as appearing to be passionate defenders of freedom without demonstrating any real understanding of why it is important. Rather the Peers got right to the crux of the issues; why were innocent people being kept on the DNA database? Was the stigmatism afforded to people given criminal records for the smallest of offences worth its weight in national security? Did innocent civillians own CCTV images of themselves stored away by the police for later use in an investigation? Were there even any protections afforded to them in return for not seeking their consent to be filmed?

This tight scrutiny yielded many important facts, some very interesting, others quite startling. Perhaps most interesting, for those who accuse the defenders of CCTV of manufacturing a police state, was the revelation that 84% of all CCTV cameras in operation are privately owned, whilst the bulk of those publicly owned were put in place by local councils at the behest of local communities. This is actually a bit of a red herring as CCTV does not prevent crime -or at least not the kind of crime they're afraid of; violent, alcohol fuelled, crime. Rather, CCTV's value lies in its use as an aid to Police investigations, providing evidence to be used in court to seal prosecutions that might otherwise be lost

For example, CCTV evidence was a vital element of the successful prosecution of two recent anti-terror trials. However many cases have continued to fall away because of a horrifying lack of co-ordination between the surveillance methods of the security services and the playback capabilities of the criminal justice system. For instance, CCTV evidence recorded on state of the art digital cameras is frequently deemed redundant owing to many courtrooms possesing nothing more than VHS video recorders for playing evidence back to juries.

Similarly, DNA samples too small to aid investigations when originally taken many years ago or taken for a smaller crime were crucial to solving long-standing crimes such as the Soham murders. The retention of innocent people's DNA was defended as being equally crucial to such investigations. This was because one of the ways Police go about identifying a potential assailant in say a rape or murder case, where DNA evidence is particularly relied upon, is to rule out the people closest to the crime scene by testing their DNA against any samples they may find. This enables them to narrow down their search and gives them a much better chance of actually finding the rapist/murderer. However, this therefore mandates the police to arbitrarily collect the DNA of anyone in or around the vicinity of the crime scene regardless of whether they have any reason to suspect them of doing anything wrong or not. Furthermore, as such cases can take decades to solve, their DNA cannot be removed from the DNA database, the Police argue, without hindering the investigation.

So which side do I fall on?

Well, I've always highly valued my privacy to the extent that I close my curtains even in my own home because I don't want people across the street to be able to see what I'm doing. But, when it comes to CCTV, I have no problem with being filmed by a device that I know could help to put away my potential mugger or worse. Similarly, being observed in public is a lot different to being watched in private. Everyone can see when you walk down the street. The notion that local authorities are violating our privacy by filming us seems somewhat bizarre to me, therefore, even if that does seem simplistic. In fact, I'm far more peturbed by the fact that there is a 4 out of 5 chance that every time I am filmed walking down the street it will be by a privately owned camera. This is for the simple reason that I can't make an ordinary individual think twice about filming me by threatening to vote for somebody else and ultimately that's what my admittedly lax attitude to state surveillance is down to. I could, of course, threaten them with rudementary violence, but I think you'll agree that's not the point.

Indeed it is the snooping techniques of the private sector that bother me the most; inexplicable junk mail from companies to whom you never gave your address, cold calls from salesmen to whom you never gave your number, employers checking your facebook for personal information they could never legally ask you at an interview. It gets worse though. In 2005, the Guardian revealed how Tesco was collating and then selling personal data gathered on millions of households throughout the UK, using a database called 'Crucible'. Apparently amongst the reams of personal information stored on Crucible were: "a map of personality, travel habits, shopping preferences and even how charitable and eco-friendly you are." The information was collected through application forms for Tesco loyalty cards combined with information gathered from subscriptions to magazines run by associated companies as well as the electoral roll. As a result, not only did Tesco gather detailed profiles on their own customers but also on a host of people who had never even shopped there in their life. One journalist trying to garner the full extent of Tesco's information gathering skills filled out an application form for the loyalty card, giving as few personal details as possible. Within one year they had two full pages on her and her shopping behaviour.

And of course, let's not forget the basic bugging devices you can buy from gadget shops or the firms that have taken the role of the old pashioned private investigator to new levels. One U.S firm called 'Advanced Surveillance Groups' offers to spy on their clients' spouses and partners to see if they are cheating on them. On their homepage it boasts: "Private Investigators have the ability to watch your spouse, monitor who they are with, where they go and what they do, discreetly and confidentially. We can do this through surveillance, utilization of vehicle tracking devices and providing you with software to monitor e-mail, chat room discussions and internet activity".

Yet, all I ever hear are complaints that it is the State that is infringing on people's individual liberty, comparing the UK today to totalitarian regimes of the past. They forget that the Police have to regularly submit themselves to investigation by three seperate regulatory bodies created specifically to hold the Police to account any time they take or use someone's personal data in an investigation of their own. They forget that they willingly and regularly open themselves up to questioning by committees such as the House of Lords Constiutional committee and the House of Commons Home affairs committee. They forget that the Police are granted these powers by democratically elected officials and can equally have them taken away as according to the will of the electorate aided by the rigorous probing into their activities by the free press. Most of all they forget that the aim of these measures in the first place is to make our streets safer and to put the few terrorists, rapists and murderers who slip through the net in jail where they belong. Any renegade officers, such as Mark Kearney, who abuse this power are promptly dealt with, rooted out through the fierce scrutiny applied by the Information Commissioner's Office and the Houses of Parliament.

This brings us back to bugging, one of the most contraversial aspects of police surveillance. The main reason why I have not said much on this so far is because the Police are about to go before the Home Affairs committee to be grilled on the Siddique Khan case specifically and I feel that such testimony would make a much better background for a piece on bugging than just my own random musings. But to address it briefly; every police officer I have discussed this with has defended the bugging of MPs when talking to terrorist suspects, especially when the two share a friendship, as necessary for the MP's protection above all else. This defence runs along the lines that an old friend with intimate knowledge of an elected representative's past or simply an emotional connection could attempt to bribe or blackmail an MP to pull strings for them to secure their release outside of due process. How much you buy in to this ultimately depends on how much or how little you trust the Police, but as someone who was initially horrified by the revelations as well as someone who does have a great deal of faith in the integrity of our security services, I was willing to accept this. Although the more cynical alternative remains: that the Police are bugging MPs sensitive conversations so they can coerce them for their own ends, the threat posed by empowering elected officials alone to authorise such activities seems greater to me. After all Joe McCarthy wasn't a police officer.

To conclude, as much as I am grateful to the press for leaving no stone unturned -once they get interested- and even the likes of Liberty for taking it upon themselves to oppose what they see as being breaches of my privacy, I still think they are missing a trick here. Rather than focusing on the seemingly uninhibited surveillance methods of private sector companies who answer only to their shareholders and are motivated only by profit, they allow their instinctive suspicion of the State to cloud their judgement. Whereas someone like me is happy for the State to be as large or small as circumstances require as long as it is under my instruction as a voter and accountable to me as a citizen, they won't be happy until they roll its frontiers as far back as they can go. Getting their way, however, would only succeed in making us more vulnerable to serious crimes and terrorist atrocities - although I don't want to demonise them as if any future terrorist attack could be blamed squarely upon Shami Chakrabarti. In the meantime, Tesco will still be offering my details to the highest bidder even though I made a conscious choice to shop at Waitrose (Sainsbury's at a push) a long time ago.

Why ethics alone can't save the world

Green is the new black. Any government that wants to get re-elected and any political party that wants to usurp them is putting the environment at the core of their rhetoric and political campaigns lest they find themselves in a perpetual political wilderness. This is of course as far as it goes. The government commits itself to drastically reducing carbon emissions at Kyoto only to see them rise; David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, rides his bike to work only to have his car follow him; whilst the Lib Dems, despite consistently saying the right things on the subject, are unlikely to find themselves challenged to put them into practice any time soon.

Why is this the case though? The electorate can spot hypocrisy when they see it and they don't settle for rhetoric without action when it comes to issues like the economy and terrorism. Hence successive governments introduce whatever measures are necessary to address them whether this means taking on powerful trade unions or moving to jail people without charge for six weeks. Quite simply, the answer is that as high as the environment may poll on any survey of voter priorities, few people are prepared to make the sacrifices entailed by a committment to save the environment. Few people are willing to sort their rubbish into recyclables and non-recyclables or to forgo their plastic bags and bottled water. Even fewer are willing to sacrifice their cheap flights abroad. This of course is no revelation. It is taken as a given that the only way to force the government to put its money where its mouth is is to launch a grassroots movement and turn Britain Green from the bottom upwards.

So, activists, concerned citizens and even a few well meaning politicians set about winning people's hearts and minds and exploiting the sensitive ethical dillemnas that are intrinsically, although by no means exclusively, linked to the problems of climate change. These include the perils of buying cheap goods highlighted not just for the damage their importation does to the environment but also for the manner in which they are manufactured. Thus, clothes from Primark are condemned for the carbon footprint they leave after being shipped from abroad whilst perpetuating child labour in the Far East. Plastic bags are reviled not just because they take centuries to decompose but also because of the pictures of small animals dying in their droves after ingesting them.

People who show little regard or knowledge of these problems are often held in such contempt -especially by many members of the party to which I belong, the Liberal Democrats- that their actions appear both incomprehensible and unjustifiable. They find it unfathomable that anyone could hold any higher priority than the safety of the planet; that anyone would even think twice about paying more for their clothes and their food if it meant minimising their carbon footprint and putting the sponsors of child labour out of busniness at the same time.

I am always instinctively wary of such people who look down on others and say things like: "I can't understand why they would do this". In a single sentence, they dismiss the circumstances of such an individual and emphasise how they would never do the same, subtly concluding that the only variable factor must be that they are just a better person. Add to this that many of those leading these 'grassroots' movements come from privileged backgrounds where the costs of food and clothing don't need to be carefully considered, and indeed weighed up against each other, and the picture becomes clearer. Consider further the fact that those who currently benefit the most from cheap clothing, food and air travel would suffer the most from restrictions on these things whilst their richer counterparts would barely even feel a tickle let alone a pinch and the challenge of forging a coherent plan of action becomes greater still.

Celebrities are frequently the worst offenders when it comes to this, not to say that a political opinion should be disregarded just because it comes from Hollywood. That said, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at pop stars who fly thousands of miles to hold concerts aimed at raising awareness of Global Warming. Others lecture the masses on the perils of climate change, stopping only to sip from their plastic bottles of water shipped directly to them from the far reaches of the earth. Similarly, even for those whose actions are consistent with their actions, no good deed goes unpunished. In the mid 1990s, according to UNICEF, a boycott of Nepalese carpets hand made by child labourers led their employers to go bust and fire all their workers. Consequently, over 5,000 Nepalese girls went from being child labourers to being child prostitutes.

Another obstacle to concerted action to tackle Climate Change in the UK is the overwhelming sense of futility felt across our small country, that without the co-operation of the biggest pollutors, namely the U.S and China, anything we do is rather inconsequential. This fatalism is not wholly unreasonable either. The biggest pollutors in the world are the most reluctant to do anything about it with the Bush administration only just beginning to concede that global warming may just be a problem after all. In addition, all things being equal even if the UK was to go carbon neutral overnight, any benefits to the environment would be quickly offset by China and India.

In sum, only a far-reaching, legally binding multi-lateral effort would prevent the efforts of the most dedicated activists from going to waste, protect the most vulnerable from the fallout and justify the most hefty sacrifices. So, I urge my fellow Lib Dems to forgive me when I say: don't blame individuals, especially those who struggle enough with the everyday circumstances of life, for the failures of government. As for the government, although they have the power and indeed the duty to tackle climate change, they are not omnipotent and have re-election and international power politics to contend with. Furthermore, as pressing as climate change is, it is not as immediate a threat as an asteroid or a tsunami even if it is of far greater proportions. Rather, to paraphrase that great source of modern political wisdom, 'The West Wing', only two things can force a government's hand: politics and money.

History shows that economics is indeed the key to energy efficiency, particularly in the United States. Currently one of the most woeful polluters in the world in spite of the growing acceptance that climate change is a man-made phenomenon which requires urgent solutions, in the eight years between 1973 and 1981, when Climate Change was not the serious consideration it has now become, energy consuption per unit of GNP actually declined by 18%. This was achieved thanks mainly to President Jimmy Carter's reforms such as creating the first cabinet level Department of Energy which oversaw a centrally co-ordinated shift from oil to alternative energy; amendments to the Clean Air Act which forced auto-makers to improve the energy efficiency of cars across the country; extra layers of insulation built into new houses to cut gas bills and tax breaks for people using solar power to meet their energy needs. What prompted such sweeping reforms? A severe oil crisis and the prospect of an immediate economic catastrophe as a result.

Now, it is familiar tensions prompting another push towards energy efficiency in the United States whilst carbon emissions trading, an initiative pioneered by the European Union, is offering a cash incentive for companies to take action. These markets, like any markets however, require greater regulation to ensure their aims are actually achieved - a critical article in the Economist some time ago highlighted how lapses in regulation of markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange have led to the undermining of its environmental credentials as loggers plundering the Amazon rainforest get rich off the scheme by using ethanol powered trucks. Nonetheless, the benefits are there to be reaped.


So, whilst well meaning people may say that ethics are the key to recycling, at the end of the day it's money that makes the world go round. In time, money can make the world go green too.

Gordon Brown Trousers - a gift to the Lib Dems

When I heard the news that there was to be no election after all either this Autumn or, in all likelihood, next year, I thought to myself: 'this stinks' - and I wasn't just talking about Gordon Brown's pantelones. I was looking forward to the contest, especially in my home constituency where we have by far the best candidate of all three parties along with control of most of its wards. However, given a day to reflect, I have concluded that this is in fact the best thing that could have happened to the Lib Dems. Don't get me wrong, they could have done well if an election was called for November, even if they lost a few seats, because Labour and the Tories would finish so close together, the balance of power would rest with us - I mean the Liberal Democrats. It was this that got me thinking today.


The Liberal Democrats have perpetually been in something of a political quagmire since their inception in 1988. They have no track record on being in power nationally - not since the days of Lloyd George anyway- and with no real natural core vote like Labour or the Tories and no distinctive identity to make clear how a Lib Dem government would be different from any other, many people dismiss them as being merely a protest party despite the fine work of many Lib Dem councils and MPs throughout the country. The elctorate needs to believe that the party they're voting for can run the country, and as long as the Lib Dems lack this experience, a natural core vote and a distinictive identity to get them up the opinion polls, their future chances of forming a government will remain increasingly bleak. In other words, at this point, the only way the Liberal Democrats could convince the people they were ready to govern would be if they were in government.

Ironically, however, the resurgence of both Labour and the Tories, albeit at the Lib Dems' expense, marks a unique opportunity for them for if there had been an election in November, regardless of who won, the Lib Dems share of seats would almost certainly have exceeded the difference between the Tories' and Labour's totals, forcing whichever of the two formed a government to court the party's support in order to get their own legislation through Parliament.

It is this that should be shaping the Lib Dem campaign; not trying to form a government and be the biggest party in Parliament - even the most enthusiastic supporter knows that won't be happening any time soon- but on holding Labour and the Conservatives, regardless of which one forms a government in 2009, to account. Furthermore, the party leadership should refrain from making any major policy proposals to allow Parliamentary candidates to tailor their campaigns to the most pressing local issues in each seat, deciding centrally only the party's key positions and beliefs. This would prevent major inconsistencies in party pledges from emerging whilst concentrating the leadership's efforts on crafting a truly unique and comprehensive identity for the party. Most importantly though, it would allow the Lib Dems to do what they do best; vigorous and committed local campaigning focusing on local issues and increasing the party's share of seats in Parliament constituency by constituency.

The logic of such a strategy is that the party need not worry about appearing as the protest party when the public already perceive them to be just that. Instead, such a perception should be welcomed and recognised for what it is - a license to criticise without the expectation of proposing policy. At a time when vast swathes of the public are highly suspicious of the two leading parties' motives and methods and unclear at times of how the two are even any different, a party that marketed itself specifically as the Devil's advocate would surely be welcomed with open arms by the electorate.

Once the election was over, with the difference in seats between the Tories and Labour likely to be quite small, the Lib Dems would then be able to use their presence to influence if not decide the passage of legislation, either as an independent third party or as a coalition partner in the government. Hence, by building on the step by step progress in constitutencies across the country and their existing MPs' enduring reputations for commitment, competence and candour along with a freshly forged and distinctive identity and presence in government, the Lib Dems could finally be a force to be reckoned with. However, such a transformation would also require the party to address the issues of party unity, funding and leadership that continue to hinder its progress.

Until then, Ming Campbell and the Liberal Democrats need to recognise that the public cannot be fooled that easily -as Gordon Brown is learning right now- and that they will need to do more than pretend they are as big as the Conservatives and Labour to convince the public they are. So rather than constantly trying to punch above their weight, they should embrace their size and the opportunities that come with being the protest party and simply say: we may be small, but we bite! Thankfully, Gordon Brown has given them an extra two years to find their feet and become the real opposition.

Throw out the targets, Camden needs more bobbies on the beat!

Last night I attended the Swiss Cottage Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, a recent innovation of the Metropolitan Police Force...whoops I mean Metropolitan Police Service - the difference being that now if your local constable fails to deliver your justice on time and with a smile on their face, you are encouraged to put a complaint in their comments box.

Seriously though, these meetings are a great idea and you do feel like you're being given an opportunity to air your grievances to those who need to hear it most and hold them accountable for it. The panel is composed of two PCs and two PCSOs and is chaired by a sergeant, but appears to be run clandestinely by Waitrose where two of the panel members work as managers. Their secret identity was only revealed last night when one of the audience members questioned the chain's security policy following her grand-daughter's harrassment by another customer only to be assiduously rebuffed by them as if they had been personally accused of the offence themselves. On the other hand, this tiny hall, temporarily converted into a bastion of local democracy, was inundated by free food and drink to encourage people to attend and stay after...all courtesy of Waitrose of course, so the jury's still out. Nevertheless, I am eagerly awaiting the day I see one of their Ocado delivery vans engaged in a high speed car chase down Finchley Road with makeshift police sirens loosely attached to the roof.

However, the meeting was not all poops and giggles. There were many complaints that the police were not doing enough to tackle street violence, gang culture and general acts of agression, wreckless disregard and intimidation ranging from loud drunkards to erratic drivers. Indeed, several members of the audience each had a story to tell about how they had suffered over the last few months and their displeasure at the police service's perceived unresponsiveness. Their frustration was exacerbated when the panel reviewed their top three target crimes in ascending order of priority, identifying where local police efforts should be concentrated - robbery 3rd, motor vehicle crime 2nd and burglary top of the list - only to exclude anti-social behaviour or even violence against the person entirely from this list. When called up on this, they insisted that it would not be a practical use of police resources.

Now this would seem quite a shocking statement to make at the best of times to an audience that had just raised anti-social behaviour as their biggest concern, but consider in addition to this the Met's own crime figures for August of this year and it becomes simply astonishing. For example 'Violence against the person' accounted for 510 of 2,903 crimes committed in Camden, exceeding the combined totals of robbery (79) and motor vehicle crime (382) over the same period. Nevertheless the panel defended their position on the grounds that the police service is so small that the only way it can effectively tackle crime is to isolate key areas where crimes most frequently occur and post officers there to ward off and arrest criminals. Similarly, they have targets for dealing with crimes most frequently reported which also help to determine where their officers will be posted. The problem with tackling anti-social behaviour and even violence and intimidation therefore is that a) it can, and does, happen anywhere in around the area and b) due to the sporadic nature of such crimes, people don't always report them, especially if it's just a case of being disturbed or scared by noisy louts where the offence is more psychological than physical, as there is little the police can do for them after the incident has occured.

As taken aback as I was by the frankness of the panel in responding to these questions as they essentially refused to take any action on the grounds that doing so would confound their complex targeting system, I also had a lot of sympathy for them. They were, after all, just doing their best with what they had and indeed had been successful in overseeing a reduction in crime on the same period last year. However, the meeting did open my eyes to the real problem which lies in the the transformation of the police from a force to a service. Where once, the police might have guarded their respective communities through a decisive presence on the streets in the form of the revered bobby on the beat with the sole aim of enforcing the law, they are now constrained by targets, regulations and endless paperwork where the aims are now to offer value for money and avoid getting sued. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to see Judge Dredd chairing the next Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, but when you consider the closest thing we have to regular bobby patrols these days are Police Community Support Officers who seem to only just have the power to give offenders a stern talking to and a mean stare as if to say "you're lucky that this uniform gives me as much power to arrest you as that guy from the Village People, otherwise you'd be in big trouble", then you've got to wander, surely there's got to be a better way.

I'm confused by Barack Obama's declaration on foreign policy

It's official. If Barack Obama becomes President he will seek the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as increasing foreign aid and deliver a state of the world address. There's more of course, but that's the general jist of it. His justification for these proposals is that the Soviet Union does not exist any more, so does not need to be defended against from the threat of nuclear war, and that instead the focus should be on keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists - the new threat.

I have just one question: why?

By that, I don't mean to question his intentions but his logic. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation are two different concepts, so why make a pledge that effectively bags the two together? Furthermore, not only is it possible to restrict proliferation without necessitating disarmament, but on the contrary it is vital. Indeed, to claim that the threat of nuclear war disappeared along with the Soviet Union is dangerously naive. This is not just because of the rekindling of traditional Cold War rivalry of late, but also because it is impossible to predict the future and to be sure that those openly hostile to us won't develop nuclear weapons or that those who already possess them won't one day become our rival or even our enemy.

That said, I completely share Mr Obama's desire to halt proliferation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists or hostile nation states. Although there are those who argue that the world would be safer place if every nation on the earth had nuclear weapons, installing the MAD mentality that kept the U.S.A and the Soviet Union at arm's length for so may years, such proliferation would be catastrophic. For a start, accidents can happen, not all leaders (especially dictators) are rational actors and arms races are uneven meaning that some states would develop nukes before others, increasing the temptation to launch a pre-emptive strike. Furthermore though, unless every country had the same number of nuclear weapons and the same targeting systems that enable US and Russian missiles alone to take out not just their rivals' biggest cities but the missile silos themselves in one strike, the MAD mentality would be replaced with an incentive to strike first, not second.

The problem with leading by example to achieve this end, however, is that it is impossible to monitor the progress of other countries especially when you consider that the way Pakistan, India and Israel managed to get round the supposedly comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to not sign it the first place. Rather, providing security guarantees within the framework of sophisticated alliances between like-minded liberal democratic states such as NATO would be far more effective. Of course, it is essential that these alliances be reinforced by the political and economic support crucial to building and sustaining stable democracies offered by the European Union and their rapidly developing regional counterparts such as the African Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations.

So, I would cautiously embrace Mr Obama's core foreign policy principles just as long as he remembers that making the world a safer place need not take priority over the security of his own country.

Why Chris Booker and his band of europhobes have got it wrong

Yesterday's Daily Mail saw Christopher Booker go off on one about the EU -total shocker- but whereas conspiracy theories such as his are for the most part laughable in their innaccuracy, they become a problem when they stand to misinform the good readers of the Daily Mail about an issue that could go to a referendum and is vital to the national interest.

Now, conspiracy theories as they go appeal to people in large because they conveniently fit certain key facts around a given theory, as opposed to fitting the theory around all the key facts. This allows such theorists, whether they argue that Elvis is still alive, the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 or, as in this case, that the EU is a pseudo fourth reich gradually taking control of Europe armed not with a vast military, but a vast bureaucracy, to swagger around with a heightened sense of righteous indignation about them.

Of course, it helps to get the facts right.

The reviled EU bureacracy for example, is no bigger than Birmingham city council (not that an army of brummies marching over Europe is to be taken at all lightly) and yet still more productive than the entire of Whitehall.

Booker, however, gave several specific examples to justify his claim that the Brown government was perpetrating a fraud against the public by not calling a referendum on the upcoming Reform Treaty. I will focus on two of them.

He first claimed that the chaos surrounding Britain's waste disposal service is down solely to the EU, specifically that everything ranging from "the plethora of different coloured bins into which we are expected to put our waste to the national epidemic of flytipping." Now, being concerned about the sovereignty of one's country is one thing, but blaming the fiendish act of flytipping on Brussels too? Don't get me wrong, if someone sees a Eurocrat flying over here from Belgium, with his rubbish and dumping it in High Street litter bins, they should be taken down like anyone else, but otherwise I think we Brits will have to shoulder the blame for that one.

As for the wider issue of waste, it is true that we are bound by certain directives such as the landfill directive which sets targets of by how much we must reduce our dependence on landfill sites over a phased period of years. However, it should be remembered that such directives must be approved by the Council which means getting the approval of the UK government and also that most of the measures put in place to meet these requirements have been at the behest of our own government.

Another wild accusation that Booker made was that the Common Foreign and Security Policy was to blame for the horrendous quagmire facing British troops in the Middle East. How an earth did he come to this conclusion? Apparently the EU is now forcing us to buy Eurofighters and navy carriers "all to equip us to fight imaginary wars in the future." Even if we ignore the fact that the EU does not have the power to send the British military to Tesco due to the national veto over all things defence, the Eurofighter has been in the works since the 1970s. Granted the process of actually ordering, building and deploying the damn things has been woeful, but this has nothing to do with the EU. In any case, only the MoD is to blame for failing to properly equip the brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and if anything Booker owes them an apology for trying to make political hey out of their plight.

As for the navy carriers and the imaginary wars, I wonder if Booker voiced the same concerns when it came to replacing Trident. And when he referred to imaginary wars was he discounting the two far away wars we're already fighting as they've already happened? Does he not understand that the UK's interests abroad are the same as those of our continental neighbours and the United States? That the Rapid Reaction Force exists in recognition of European states' inability to fight today's wars of high technology and hugely advanced -and expensive- weaponry on a single defence budget and therefore seeks to make the most of what we have? That it is designed to consolidate our presence in NATO and to work with the American military machine in providing support or speedy and decisive intervention? Needless to say, it is quite mind-boggling how he and other euro-phobes like him can throw stones at the EU over the issue of sovereignty only to pay little if any regard to the importance of national security above all. But then, the national interest has never been top of the europhobe agenda. To the contrary, their stance is built on misplaced ideology at best and pure xenophobia at worst.

Of course, his main gripe though, as with all europhobes at the moment was with the Reform Treaty which he insisted is the Constitution in disguise. This latest treaty does include some of the provisions from the constitutional treaty it is true, but some of the most contraversial elements such as: the constitutional label, that would have done away with the convention of progress by international treaty alone, the flag and anthem, charter of human rights and the reference to 'free and undistorted competition' as the EU's key goal have been dropped. The items kept in, such as a legal personality for the EU -this already exists in the WTO- a permanent EU foreign affairs representative, extended qualified majority voting, as well a mechanism for national parliaments to directly scrutinise EU draft legislation, will have far less impact on British sovereignty than the Maastricht treaty or the Single European Act, neither of which were deemed to warrant a referendum.

Ultimately, of course we cannot retain absolute sovereignty and remain in the European Union, just as we can't retain it and remain in NATO or the World Trade Organisation. But sovereignty is not an end in itself, certainly not in international politics. The aim is the maximisation of the national interest which in turn gauarantees the security of the nation. The retention of absolute sovereignty was not in the national interest at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and it certainly isn't now with the resurgence of Russia and the emergence of China. The pooling of sovereignty in Europe has also served to gurantee the economic, political and military security of its constituent members. The EU's funds have been used to propel member states' economic growth such as Ireland, to assist countries in a state of emergency such as Greece this summer and to offer the institutional and economic support necessary to protect fledgling democracies, emerging from brutal dictatorships.

Most importantly, through binding member states economies, it has delivered peace in Europe. Although, the role of NATO cannot be understated in protecting Europe from itself through threat of American military intervention, since the demise of the Soviet Union, that responsibility has been transferred to the EU. Indeed, rather than simply preventing Germany from invading France again, as NATO achieved, the EU has taken this one step further by converting the two from warring neighbours to resolute allies and it has achieved this by forcibly binding their interests together. It is no coincidence that steel was the first industry to be merged in the infancy of the EU, it is the most crucial industry for a country at war.

In turn, the benefits of the EU to the individual citizens are unparalled anywhere else. The common market has provided for the free exchange of goods, turning the EU into an economic superpower. Europeans also enjoy freedom of movement whilst the rights they enjoy at home are replicated abroad whether it be in the guise of cheap phonecalls or legal representation. EU directives on the environment, investment in regional development and resolute defence of human rights have done far more for individuals in this country than the government could ever have done alone. I often find it strange that the Conservative party of all parties harbour the most europhobes. They are meant to be for free markets and a strong international presence yet they harp on about sovereignty and allege that the EU stifles British business through its regulations and undermines Parliamentary democracy. The even more phobic UKIP on the Far Right of British politics, and compeltely in step with Booker's views, paint a picture of European Commissioners goose-stepping through Brussels, twirling the ends of whisker-like moustaches as they plot their conquest of Britain through the back door.

The problem with all this is that the EU is almost never the instigator of these decisions heralded as the death of democracy. It is often big businesses, organisations or national leaders themselves who fuel European legislation through their demands for harmonisation across the EU of their respective industries or laws because of the benefits of such legislation to them. Every directive has to be authorised by the Council and the ECJ with Parliamentary oversight scrutinising their every move. Indeed, even the very sub-committees of the Commission that draft EU legislation constantly work with member state representatives as well as the various lobbyists that occupy so much of Brussels' office space.

There are some who assert that we'd be better off ditching Europe altogether and joining NAFTA and creating an English Speaking Union. This is proposterous. Not just because the trade agreements we enjoy with America right now actually exceed the provisions of NAFTA, but also because a Britain outside of Europe is useless to America. We would be useless to American firms investing in Britain without access to the single market and we would be useless to any American government seeking to reinforce the transatlantic relationship, the bedrock of European and American security strategies alike. It was Henry Kissinger who famously asked what phone number he should call for Europe, stressing the American desire to work with a united and secure Europe. For the most part, that number has been Britain's as we have combined the fruits of the Special Relationship with our position at the heart of Europe. However, in the years since the Iraq war, our total compliance with American foreign policy has led to our alienation within Europe. The result was plain to see following Israel's invasion of Lebanon. When the U.S decided to work with the EU to send a UN peacekeeping force into the country, it phoned France, not Britain.

The europhobes' case is not entirely without merit though. There is a definite democratic deficit in the European Union. All the 'high politics', all the bargaining is done behind closed doors, only to be presented to the people in a barely comprehensible format. Prime Ministers and Presidents use the Council to bypass their own Parliaments, relying instead on the precedent set by the treaty their Parliament ratified however many years ago, offering them no opportunity to question or object to their manouevering. This is hardly surprising as such measures are taken to avoid difficult Parliamentary debates over hotly contested issues such as immigration. The European Parliament in turn is rendered impotent even though it yields the authority to constrain its sibling institutions as Premiers have no interest in promoting it and voters find it difficult to identify with it. The only way to rectify this is to open the EU up; tv cameras everywhere -few may actually watch, but it would be start- except for discussion on military matters of course. A great debate is also needed over Britain's place in the EU and where we see ourselves going. It's no surprise that the government is scared of having this debate considering that the media has already made up its mind, but even so every poll says that British people are wholeheartedly in favour of greater European intergration -even the Euro- if it can be shown to be in the national interest.

So, let's have that debate Mr Booker and you're not so merry men, but if you're going to accuse the EU of 'anschluss by other means', then please stick to the facts, even if you do choose just to highlight the ones which support your own position. For that reason alone, I welcome a referendum on the Reform Treaty, even though I don't think we need one.