Just weeks into his leadership of the UK Government David Cameron has, on his visit to Turkey opened an issue that many of our European neighbours will find somewhat contentious – their entry as a full EU Member State!

Turkey's application for full EU membership was rejected at the time of their previous application because they did not fulfil all the criteria for admission. There was opposition to their entry from France, Germany and Austria, plus reservations by several other countries. They were told that the major barriers to their full entry were the economy, their issues in terms of human rights ( particularly related to the large Kurdish community), and their unwillingness to recognise the Greek part of Cyprus which is already a member state. Turkey were, however, granted preferential trading status.

Whilst the issues around the economy are on a way towards resolution there has been scant forward movement on the two other issues. In view of this why on earth is David Cameron supporting this application? I suppose the biggest motivator of all – MONEY through increased trade!
There is no doubt that David Cameron sees Turkey as a bridge between the EU and the Middle East, and the economic advantages of that are obvious. However, on the legitimacy of their claims to be part of Europe I am unsure that 3% of their land mass actually qualifies them. If this is the case then we'd better be prepared to take in Russia.

What amuses me is that David Cameron is not the hugest supporter of the EU. His stance, at least during the elections, was that the EU's powers and bureaucracy should not be extended, and the size should remain within manageable proportions. This would seem wise since the last expansion of the EU brought in countries which were very borderline in terms of their economies and this could be a serious strain on other established member states. Now he is suggesting the inclusion of a state that would rival other states in terms of population size, and therefore of influence in the general assembly. Given all the areas of non-compliance is this wise? Well, not in my opinion.

Mind you, I'm not sure whether I should worry about what David Cameron's wishes are at this point in time since rejection by one member state would derail the application all together. So, at the moment I am busy saying – Go France and Germany GO!

Top BP executive Tony Hayward is expected to formally announce his resignation from BP. The BP Board will meet on Monday in order to deal with the resignation.

This beleagured executive has shown signs of stress following his recent grilling before a US Senate committee. This lengthy grilling conducted by a group of Senators proceded to pose Tony Hayward many questions that were impossible for him to answer. To be honest, it wouldn't have made any difference what he'd said he would have been hung out to dry. Even saying he wanted the issue dealt with so he could 'get back his life' resulted in scorn being poured down on his head.

To those who were naive enough to think that the ills of a multinational company all lay in the hands of one man sorry, but you'll have to find someone else to castigate.

Still, Tony Hayward will be on his way with a well negotiated settlement and a lump sum, plus a hefty contribution to his pension fund.
When he's gone maybe we'll begin to get at those who were truly responsible - both for the Gulf oil spillage and the BP connection with the Libyan Lockerbie bomber's release.

But I won't hold my breath.

I listened with horror to the flat emotionless voice of Saiqa Akhtar from Irvine Texas as she told the 911 operator how she had probably killed 2 and 5 year old children. She explained to the woman that she had tried to get them to drink toilet cleaner, but they wouldn't, so she took a wire and wrapped it round their necks............ and the reason she committed this heinous crime? The children were autistic, and she didn't want autistic children, she wanted normal children.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

On the 5PM show on the Paltalk News Network we looked at the issue of child abuse in our society.
There's nothing so grabs the attention of both listeners and viewers as an emotional account – and to be honest the account of how baby Brianna Lopez from New Mexico was systematically abused, beaten and bitten till that small frail life expired did just that. I make no apologies for creating the emotional response that happened. We NEED to be shocked, we need to be horrified, we need to be reviled by the abuse of children, whoever they are or wherever they are.
It would be nice and cosy to think that as society becomes more sophisticated, and our methods of tracking and monitoring these aberrations we would begin to see a decline in the incidence of child abuse, not so. However many people are employed to look after the safety of our children and young people, it's not working.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Kaira Ishaq died of an infection after being starved for months by her parents. This abhoration happened in 2009 in Birmingham England.

Photo courtesy of West Midlands Police/PA

WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

So, Tony Blair will once again come under the world spotlight that he craved so much when he was Prime Minister in the UK. However, this time it will not be to tell us how wonderful his new plans and strategies are, but to be called to account for actions that MAY have taken place under his watch.

The release of the only man convicted for his part in the Lockerbie bombing, Abdulbasset al Magrahi, by the Scottish courts a year ago on compassionate grounds has come into sharp focus again. A Senate Committee has called for an enquiry into the possible involvement of BP oil in using financially persuasive arguments to speed up the prisoner release scheme in exchange for Libyan offshore drilling contracts.

The possible involvement of the British Government in these arrangements has, as one can imagine, caused a furore amongst the families of those who died in the tragedy and the politicians who represent them. As Prime Minister at the time of the suspected deal Tony Blair has been 'invited' to testify before a US Senate Committee. Jack Straw, Home Secretary at the time, has also been invited.

There is no denying that both these men would have been aware of the deal - Blair's attendance at the signing of the Libyan contracts between BP and Ghadaffi is well documented. The question that remains is, was there complicity, and if so, how do they reconcile the gains for big business with the functioning of a Government?

One thing that's for sure is that Tony Blair must be getting used to having his feet held to the fire for his actions as PM - surely he's still reeling from his 'interview' at the Chilcote Enquiry into the Iraq war. Let's hope he does a better job at this hearing than he did there, for his sake! Maybe he is now pondering on the maxim: Be sure your sins will find you out. However, with his ego I would think it more likely that he is most likely thinking: No good deed goes unpunished!

This whole issue arose at the time when David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, was visit President Obama. The demands for him to call an official enquiry were answered by him saying that a rigorous examination of the said deals would be conducted.

As promised by the Coalition Government in the UK the emergency budget has been delivered this lunch time. This comes just ahead of the G20 meeting in Toronto this coming weekend.This is by no means a totally comprehensive commentary on the speech, but should give a flavour of they way the current Government are thinking.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, started out by stating that this was an 'unavoidable budget'. He indicated that his emphasis in this budget was to be based around lower spending rather than huge tax increases, in fact lower spending accounted for 77%, while tax increases accounted for just 23%.
He started by pointing out that, unchecked, our interest on debt would be a quarter of a trillion pounds. This was unacceptable, and a road that we could not afford to travel.
As I saw it the measures being implemented came in 3 elements:

Firstly spending restrictions:
There would be no further reduction in capital expenditure, however,any projects on the planning will be assessed for their appropriateness and effectiveness.
There will be a 2 year pay freeze on public sector pay except for those low paid workers on £21, 000 or less per year, they will be entitled to a £250 payment. As a new rule the highest paid worker will earn no more than 20 times the lowest paid worker.
There will be increased incentives to work. The welfare budget has spiralled and needs to be rationalised, as do benefits from housing benefits. With housing benefits there will be limits on the amount anyone can claim as a benefit.
Child benefit will be frozen for the next 3 years and Disability Living allowance, whilst not reduced will be available only after a sound medical recommendation.
These savings will add up to some £11 billion annually.

Secondly support for the private sector:
Corporation tax will be cut from 28p in the pound over the next for years to 24 p in the pound.
The Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme will be expanded, thus encouraging businesses to grow and expand.
A Banking Levy will be introduced as from January 2010, this will generate 2 billion pounds annually. This has also been adopted by France and Germany we hear.
There will be incentives for regional growth within the private sector with tax breaks of £5000 for up to 10 new employees.
There will be Green Investment Banking designed to encourage exploration and development of new green technologies.

Thirdly Personal taxation:
VAT will rise from 17.5% to 20% as from January 2011, there will be no extension of the goods that fall under VAT. This will generate some £13 billion in income.
Council tax will be frozen and Local Authorities will be given incentives from Central Government to maintain current levels.
Capital Gains Tax will rise, to 18% for low to middle income savers, and to 28% for higher savers.
There is a change in income tax – the tax free threshold has been increased by £1000 per annum. This will eventually increase to bring the tax free threshold to £10,000 per annum.
From April 2011 pensions will be index linked.
There will be an increase of child tax credits of £150 by 2011.

George Osborne emphasised that everyone will pay something, but it will be proportionate/

Harriet Harman, the temporary leader of the Labour party gave a response, but prefaced it by saying “Whatever they do we'll vote against it.” I found this a naïve and incredible partisan approach which is an extremely critical issue, be you Labour, Conservative , Liberal Democrat, or even Raving Loony Monster Party!!

A sad milestone was hit today in the war in Afghanistan – our 300th victim.

The steadily mounting numbers of fatalities is anticipated to increase during the Summer months, a situation that the Forces officials and family members of forces look forward to with dread.
David Cameron, our current Prime Minister has reacted strongly, reiterating the message when he visited troops earlier this month that we will not remain in the region for a moment later than necessary. He has vowed to bring the troops home as soon as the Afghan Government has sufficient security forces of its own, and the ability to enforce a peace over the Taliban insurgents.

In the meantime there is ever waning support for the war in Afghanistan. The latest poll figures on the continuance of the war suggest that 64% of the British population do NOT support the continued war. There is a strong groundswell of opinion that the reasons for continuing in Afghanistan are no longer valid, and that we are acting more as a peace keeping force. If this is the case one would have to ask where are the NATO troops, this is after all a NATO operation, isn't it?

So while we wait we will continue to listen for news of the casualties, and watch for those sad flower bedecked hearses to roll through the streets of Wooten Basset bearing the flag draped coffins, wondering- WHY?

There is no doubt about it.......... the oil spill in the Gulf is a man-made environmental disaster of epic proportions. There is also no doubt that the final buck will stop with BP in terms of solving the problem and making the appropriate compensations. Nor, from what I can gather, are BP backing off from their responsibilities.

This being the case I was absolutely amazed to hear Barak Obama's speech last night. To say it was obviously confrontational would be somewhat of an understatement. Given that BP have admitted their responsibilities and agreed to pay compensation why did President Obama find it necessary to take such a heavy handed approach and, by implication, suggest that BP would not live up to their part of the bargain. Maybe it has more to do with how Obama wants to be perceived rather than the facts of the matter. It beggars belief to think that the leader of a country could resort to treating a multinational company like an errant schoolchild, and telling them he was going to 'manage' their funds!!!

Now why would I, a Brit, be concerned about this? Well I guess because in this 'lay the blame' laden society there has been criticism laid at the door of the UK. Yes, BP did at one time stand for British Petroleum, but to the best of my knowledge that actually changed when it became a Multinational company and it became known merely as BP. This seems to be something that many Americans choose to ignore, including the esteemed US President!
There have been communications, and most certainly some blame laying by high ranking Government officials on the UK as a whole. I suppose we are expected to ignore the fact that BP is a multinational and that 39% of BP stock is owned by Americans. I think it would be fair to say that as sympathetic as the Brits are to the damage done by the oil spillage they remain singularly unimpressed by the flagrant attempts to make it a UK issue. We know that David Cameron, our Prime Minister, had a conversation with Barak Obama, but have no great detail of what the content was. However others in our Government have indicated that there was a distinct attempt to make it a UK issue. Boris Johnson, the outspoken Lord Mayor of London, was most vociferous in his abhorrence of this attempt to shift the blame, maybe we need more politicians who are outspoken and say what they actually mean.

Still, I am sure that we Brits will get over the obvious sleights by the current White House regime, after all, according to Obama we do not have a 'special relationship' with the USA!!!!

Oh, and as a side note: There was a certain irony in Obama sounding so Churchillian in his speech last night after he returned our gift to the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill !

Two former Cabinet ministers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt have called for a secret ballot to determine whether Gordon Brown is the right person to lead the Labour Party into the General Election due this year.
This is an unprecedented challenge to the leadership of any party so close to the election. They claim that the Labour party will be damaged by maintaining Brown as the leader.
Although Hoon and Hewitt have no clear idea of who should take Brown's place they feel it is appropriate. Neither do the two MPs have a clear idea of who would support their cause, though I am sure many will.

When Gordon Brown took over the reins of leadership from Tony Blair there were suggestions that he should call an early General Election. This came as a suggestion from both sides, the left because they felt his leadership needed to be ratified by having him as an alected leader, the right because they saw this as an opportunity to seize control of the country.

Good old Gordon has gone from crisis to crisis, not all of his own making, I have to admit. He was handed the 'poison chalice' from his buddy, Tony Blair. He's had the Global Financial Crisis to deal with, the disasterous foreign policy, unpopular wars that are not properly funded, the Lisbon Treaty........... and now Copenhagen.

The UK is due an election in 2010 anyway, traditionally this would be the first Thursday in May, but what is being speculated is that there will be an early election - maybe as early as March 25th. For Gordon Brown this could have several advantages. It would mean that they controlled when the General Election would take place. It also means that they will not have had chance to implement the unpopular economic measures that Alaistair Darling proposed in his pre-budget speech a couple of weeks ago.

David Cameron, opposition leader, is not phased by the thought of an early election, he says he is ready. Interestingly enough Cameron's party have said they will go for even stricter measures in terms of restraints on public speanding. The big difference is that they have never hidden that they will bring in strict measures - they say that desperate measures require desperate means!

So, we could soon have a new leader in the UK........... at least we in the UK have that to hope for!!!

Isn't that the start of the first line of the musical that commemorates that greatest of Danish exports - Hans Christian Anderson?

Hans Christian pales into relative insignificance when we look at what will be happening in Copenhagen during these next 2 weeks. CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE!! The big 3C words! ( 4 if we add Copenhagen !)

After the failure of the Kyoto Treaty to win total support, those persistant burghers formulated yet another plan to deal with what is perceived as one of the major threats to our civilisation - global warming. Meeting in Denmark are representatives and experts from nations both large and small from around the world who will address the question of what negative impacts man is having on the environment, and what ways this can be reduced. The first week of this International conference will deal with the 'language' of the treaty, and establish concensus on what will or will not be included in the final draft. The second week will be when the 'big guns' attend...... the leaders of the major nations. This will be the period during which decisions are made, and, presumably, signatures affixed to the document.

Before I go on, let me state, I am not a scientist. However, I don't see this as a purely scientific move, I see it as a political manipulation that is trading on often half understood scientific manipulations. In other words, a stick with which to beat people! ( Now I fear I am beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist!!). What I am, however, is a sceptic when it comes to the issues around climate change. I am not stupid enough to believe that man's pollution hasn't had an impact, nor that carbon emissions have an impact on the population, nor that eating up the world's natural resources will not have an impact on our lietstyles in the future. What I am sceptical about is that man can affect nature to the extent that we are led to believe.

Throughout today I have watched news broadcasts from around the world in an attempt to garner some insight into what people were thinking. Sadly I have not really got any answers, but it did raise a lot of questions for me:

Will the scientists who do not believe that man makes a significant impact on climate change be given a fair hearing, and importantly, unbiased media coverage?

Concensus seems to be that the developed nations who have benefitted from industrialisation will have to pay for those who are underdeveloped ---- so, the question is- will the Western nations be penalised and 'capped' to death, and how will this affect the balance of power in the world? The anciliary question would be, who would administer such a fund, the UN, the World Bank?

Who would administer the cap and trade program, ensuring that everyone is playing by the rules?

Once a nation has signed up for this treaty can they withdraw at any point?

We are already hearing about exploitation by a new group who are laughingly called 'Carbon Cowboys' ----- who will monitor this across International borders, and who will administer any punishment for breaking the rules?

Who will verify the authenticity of any claims since we don't have an International police force?

How will the nations who do not sign up to the treaty be treated, will they be advantaged or disadvantged?

Who will oversee the distribution of communaly held monies which could/should be used for the development of new technologies?

How will the compensation be for nations, such as Saudi Arabia, who claim that they should receive compensation because new technologies will undermine their natural assets, be adjudged and distributed?

For me, like many, there are more questions than answers!

Well, last night......... over a dinner of wild mushrooms, spiced sea bass and chocolate fondant the esteemed leaders of the European Union made a landmark decision! They chose the first EU President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs......

For anyone who thought that this block of 27 countries, with a population of some 500 million might become a power that could challenge the power of even the greatest world super powers you can breath a sigh of relief.... or a sigh of regret. Europe has done it again, they have lost the plot.

The position of President of the EU has been named as Herman Van Rompuy, known locally as Haiku Herman because of his love of writing Haiku poetry. He's the Prime Minister of Belgium currently, a position he's held for just a year. He's been the Parliamentary Chairman of the Christian Democrat Party for many years, a position known in Belgium as an end of career job. He's an intelligent man, an intellectual who has not so far set the world alight, and to be honest, is hardly likely to now.

So how did this 'grey' man become the leader of such a large block of people? Well, when your supporters number 2 of the strongest nations within the 27 nations, France and Germany, then you have to be in with a shout.There were 2 other contenders for the role - the President of Luxemburgh ( whose name I can't quite recall ), and Tony Blair, ex PM of the UK. Poor Tony couldn't even count on the support of his successor, Gordon Brown, but hey ho, that's the way the cookie crumbles!

So, we have a relative unknown as EU President - and as High Representative for Foreign Affairs someone who is a virtual nonentity outside of a the English House of Lords - Baroness Catherine Ashton. This lady, who has never been elected to any office, and is 'parochial' at best, has now been put in a position where she will be expected to use diplomatic skills on an international scale. Hillary Clinton would eat her alive...... heck, Sarah Palin looks like a top scale politician at the side of her!

So, for anyone who feared the power of the EU, breathe easy. Noddy and Big Ears have taken over Toytown!!
(But the dinner menu looked OK!!)

Ireland are proposing a scheme whereby they pay 'non nationals' to return to this the country of their origin! The scheme, funded by an EU project, has made some 600,000 Euros available for this scheme. Individuals cannot apply, but they can apply through organisations and community schemes.

Although official figures in Ireland state that only 18% of the population is made up of 'non nationals' academics argue that the figure is closer to 20%. One fifth of the total population of the country. These 'non nationals' come mainly from Eastern Europe, China, Brazil, West Africa, or British who have gone to settle there.
Immigrants were attracted to Ireland by the boom in the construction industry and the retail and hospitality industry, all of which have suffered as a result of the world financial crisis, plus the end of abundant EU finance into Ireland.

Kevin Kiely, Mayor of Limerick, argues that the Government is borrowing 400 nillion Euros per week to maintain its own citizens, and that they cannot afford to have immigrants who are abusing the system by claiming social welfare benefits. Whilst this is a view that his party have distanced themselves from there is no doubt that with the current proposals this resonates with many in Ireland.

It's a bold step, but undoubtedly one that will gain traction in the country as the recession continues to bite. The tougher things get........ then the less likely countries will be willing to take strangers into their midst. There is no huge tradition of immigration into Ireland, until the early 1990s Ireland was 95% white and Catholic.

It's not very often that I will stand up and shout out for Gordon Brown, but you have to be fair, and on this occasion I have to stand firmly on his side.

The top story on the BBC news today has been about a mother of a soldier, Jamie Janes, has criticised Gordon Brown for a scrawled letter of condolence that has miss-spellings in it.

Brown is in the habit of hand writing letters of condolence to the parents of all soldiers who lose their lives during the wars. He has long been criticised for his poor handwriting, and add to that his poor eyesite there could be a problem!

Mrs Janes, the soldier's mother, said the letter was a 'scrawled insult', and contained mistakes, such as the spelling of her son's name. Brown had written JAMES, instead of JANES.

I'd like to say to Mrs Janes....... whilst I feel for your loss - get real! How many political leaders would even take the trouble to write an individual letter, let alone HAND WRITE one? What would you like him to do Mrs Janes? Be sent back to the Marian Richardson School of Handwriting for corrective training?? Dictate it to an underling and just scrawl a signature on the bottom?

Gordon Brown is said to be mortified by the event and has apologised to Mrs Janes....... but..... he is still determined to carry on with his practice of hand writing letters of condolence.
Maybe he should print a disclaimer at the bottom..... THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN WITHOUT THE AID OF A SPELL-CHECKER!!!

These are the lines from the poem 'In Flanders Field' written in 1915 by John McCrae in the midst of the carnage of WW1.
The Poppy has become the symbol that commemorates the lives of those who fell during wars and conflicts throughout the world. Each petal of the poppy symbolises the life of a person lost.

Here in the UK the sale of poppies is handled by the British Legion. The money they raise, around £33 million last year, goes towards supporting those injured in war, ex service personnel, relatives of those who died in conflict and maintaining war graves. The sellers give their time and efforts because they believe in the cause, because they feel it's the appropriate thing to do.

Currently we are involved in a war in Afghanistan that is becoming increasingly unpopular, having just completed a war in Iraq that had variable support from the British public. Yet what has this to do with the soldiers sailors and air-force personnel who are sent by the Government, who are just fulfilling their duties?

I was shocked to read of the responses of some people to the sale of poppies:
In Derbyshire 48 Public Libraries banned the sale of poppies on their premises. This ban was only lifted after a public outcry.
In Portsmouth a WW2 veteran was made to leave a shopping centre where he had sold poppies for many years. A security guard ejected him, telling him he was breaching Health and Safety Regulations.
In Kent a village pub was boycotted by locals when the landlady refused to allow the sale of poppies in the pub. Her argument was that she already had 3 charities that she supported.
The BBC debated whether contestants in the popular Saturday night show 'Strictly Come Dancing' should be allowed to wear poppies as they performed because of Health and Saftey Regulations. ( now that WOULD make a story - being maimed by a poppy)
The BODYCARE chain of stores told employees that they could not wear poppies whilst at work. One woman who refused to do so was told that she would face disciplinary action. The ban was eventually lifted.

So the list goes on.........
In our politically correct world have we lost all feeling for the past? Have we forgotten the sacrifices some gave? Have we lost all common decency?

Britain is using contraversial genetic testing techniques to determine the eligibility of some African Assylum Seekers. This practice has been decried by both scientists and Human Rights groups.

The test, which requires a sample of hair or nail, or a swab to be sent for analysis in an attempt to determine the nationality of the applicants. The hope is that this will rule out the numbers of assylum seekers from Africa who lie about what country they originate from. The test is voluntary.

This isn't the first time that this method was used as it was used experimentally in the USA in 2007 in an attempt to vet applicants for entry into the USA who claimed to be relatives of Africans already granted assylum. The project ran till 2008 when it was abandoned - the results of this experiment indicated that 87% of the applications were fraudulent. The USA no longer employs these practices, but the resettlement programme was suspended until concerns could be addressed.

Scientists in the UK who oppose this practice say that there is no way that these tests can accurately determine nationality. They tests would only give an indication of the person's ancestral lineage, but not necessarily the geographic location since population movements over centuries have made that virtually impossible to determine.

In addition to the genetic testing they are also conducting isotope analysis of hair and nails in order to determine where the person had been recently. Scientists insist that this is flawed since to use the isotope technology accurately they would need to analyse bone or tooth samples.

Civil liberties organisations predictably decry these methods, saying that these measures should not be employed in a democratic society. The Government meanwhile has to find the balance between the rights of legitimate assylum seekers, those who lie about their status, and the rights and security of the country as a whole.

Interstingly enough in the first quarter of 2009 there have been 8, 380 applications for assylum, a 27% increase over the first quarter of 2008. The numbers granted, of that 8,380, was 1,485. I suppose the big question has to be....... how many of the failed assylum seekers have been returned to their country of origin?

In the week when 5 British troops were slaughtered by one of the very men they were trying to help the UN announce that they are withdrawing half their civilian personnel from Afghanistan because it's too dangerous.

It's an almost daily occurence to hear of deaths of the troop personnel and civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Usually these deaths are associated with our troops encountering pockets of insurgency, or those dreaded roadside bombs... however that changed over the past couple of weeks. With anger rising by some factions about the proposed re-run of the elections we saw the targetting of not only the troops personnel but also the civilian personnel from the UN. The bombing of the building housing the UN personnel with International UN personnel as well as native Afghanis dying at the hands of 'Taliban' insurgents.

Today we hear the news that the UN are withdrawing half their personnel because it's too dangerous, in their opinion. Now, I am not disputing that.. BUT, isn't it equally dangerous for our troops?
5 British soldiers were slaughtered and others injured this week by an Afghani Policeman they were training. This wasn't a military activity, it was about supporting the Afghani civilian Government - it was about moving the Afghanis towards a safer future and self determination/governance. This is the reward?

If Afghanistan is too dangerous for the civilain UN personnel isn't it equally dangerous for our troops to remain there, especially since now we can't even trust those who were purportedly 'non hostile'.
We went in there after Bin Laden. Now we are told we are there to ensure the peace and stability in order to facilitate the free and fair election of a Government. Well, although that didn't happen....... but I guess everything is relative - they now have a Government, of sorts.... but nevertheless a Government. So what other reason are we going to get fobbed off with for remaining in the region?

If it's appropriate to remove UN personnel isn't it appropriate to say mission accomplished, objectives achieved, and withdraw our fighting personnel from the region?

Well folks, that looks like it. The Czech Republic has agreed to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum. This means that the sweeping changes that will happen across Europe are set to go ahead, including the appointment of the first EU Commission president.

This must come as a blow to David Cameron who had promised the UK a referendum on whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty should his party be elected in the UK General Election scheduled for mid 2010. What Cameron was essentially doing was seeking to fulfill the promises made by Tony Blair prior to his least re-election that, should he be re-elected, then he would have a referendum on the European Constitution (which had morphed into the Lisbon Treaty).

Of course the irony of all this is that one of the fore-runners for election as first EU president is no other than Tony Blair. For many he is an obvious choice, being one of the contenders who has a high international profile. However, it could fail to attract him fully on two points: there might not be enough power in the role as it was conceived. And it may not pay enough!

This is not a role like, say, the president of the USA, but one in charge of the commission. On the second point - the money. Blair would have to give up his lucrative lecturing career, and his advisory role at an American mega insurance company, not to mention his third full-time role as Middle Eastern envoy! So, if his motivators are money and power, I would say he's on a loser!