I see that the Conservative local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions have refused to follow the official Cameron line on Europe and pull out of European Peoples Party Group.  They say that to have left the EPP Group would have been “impractical”, that to do so would have made it “much more difficult to work effectively” and would have taken them out of a grouping that “Commissioners actually pay attention to.”

So now we know: Tory local government politicians are more sensible than their national leadership.  Of course, this may not be saying very much ……

I see that my MPA colleague James Cleverly has fallen (despite being a Tory) into the typical trap that usually catches the LibDems of having a Pavlovian reaction every time the words “counter-terrorism” or “anti-terrorism” are seen.

He has repeated the myth that the UK Government wrongly used counter-terrorist powers to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks when it looked as though British citizens and institutions might suffer when the banks appeared to be about to default.

The powers used were in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

LibDems and James Cleverly should notice that, although the Act’s title contains the magic word “anti-terrorism”, it is also about “crime and security”.

The specific power used was the freezing power and the Act specifies the following:

“(1) The Treasury may make a freezing order if the following two conditions are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the Treasury reasonably believe that—

(a) action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons, or

(b) action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom or residents of the United Kingdom has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons.

(3) If one person is believed to have taken or to be likely to take the action the second condition is that the person is—

(a) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) a resident of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

(4) If two or more persons are believed to have taken or to be likely to take the action the second condition is that each of them falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3); and different persons may fall within different paragraphs.”

Even a LibDem (and especially someone who is usually more sensible – like James Cleverly) might recognise that these powers are not about combatting terrorism.  They are more general powers and are about protecting the UK economy and/or the property of UK nationals.

The question that James Cleverly has to answer – I don’t expect a coherent response from the LibDems – is why repeat something that is wrong and more particularly is he against protecting the UK economy and the property of British citizens?

Everybody knows that the European Parliament is at the cutting edge of global political thought.

So it is no surprise to discover that in 2005 (long before last month’s attempted airline bombing made them a world-wide must-have) the European Parliament bought six full body scanners to protect MEPs from being attacked in the Parliament buildings.

Given the legendary efficiency of the EU institutions, it is also no surprise to learn that these six machines – purchased for over 700,000 Euros – have never been used.  Apparently, in 2008 the Parliament rejected a bill to permit the use of such scanners across the EU on the grounds that the graphic images provided by such scanners constituted a “virtual strip search”.  It is thought that MEPs were not aware at the time that the Parliament had six scanners lying around in their unopened boxes.

After the MEPs had voted against the use of such scanners, European Parliament officials then “rushed” to dispose of the unwanted items.  Obviously, there are complex procedures to be followed in such cases, so that the invitation to bid for the six scanners will only be issued in the next few days.  The delay, of course, means that, given the current fashion for full body scanning, there should be no shortage of bidders.

But should the European Parliament still be going ahead with the sales, in the light of the latest security threats?  Of course it should – as its spokesperson perspicaciously points out, “The Parliament is not an airport”.

I am delighted to hear that Baroness Cathy Ashton is to be the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs.  Typically, there has been some sniping from Tory Euro-phobes like Timothy Kirkhope MEP, demonstrating yet again that the Conservative Party have difficulty understanding what the term “national interest” means in the context of the European Union.

Why is this good news?

Firstly, it is recognition of the hugely impressive work she has put in as EU Trade Commissioner – following on the similarly impressive role played by her predecessor, Lord Peter Mandelson.

Secondly, the new role is going to be pivotal in the EU and may at least initially turn out to be more significant than the part played by the new President and having a Briton right at the heart of the EU will ensure that the UK is not sidelined.

This is particularly important now that the Conservative Party have taken themselves out of the Centre-Right mainstream by the bizarre decision to withdraw their MEPs from the EPP grouping.  In the event (remote, of course) of there being a Conservative Government after the next General Election, it will be important for the UK’s standing in Europe that the UK is not seen as being only represented by swivel-eyed phobics.

Thirdly and most importantly, she will do a good job.  She demonstrated as Leader of the Lords that she could build consensus (she was genuinely a Leader of the whole House and not just of the Labour benches), and as a Minister that she could master complex detail (steering hugely complicated and difficult pieces of legislation through the House – not least the Bill ratifying the Lisbon Treaty).

My only regret is that this means that she will remain on “Leave of Absence” from the House of Lords while she remains in post.

And, of course, I also feel sorry for her husband Peter Kellner, who was one of my local Labour Party members when I held my first political office as a Party Branch Secretary when I was still at school almost 40 years ago.  I bumped into him a few weeks after Cathy’s appointment as EU Trade Commissioner, greeting him with the words “When did you last see your wife?” and detected a whiff of sadness when he replied defensively “Sunday night”.

I spent some time tonight at the Cyprus High Commission viewing a very powerful exhibition of photographs showing how a huge number of churches and places of worship have been desecrated in those parts of Cyprus that were invaded and occupied by Turkish forces in 1974.

The photographs were taken by Doros Partasides who settled in London with his family after the 1974 invasion (he also photographed the invasion itself and its aftermath).  In the last few years, it has been possible for him to return and, as he puts it, that it was “with great trepidation” he finally visited his father’s village in the occupied area for the first time in over thirty years.

He writes:

“It was if time had stopped there in 1974.  It was immeasurably moving for me.  I decided then to record these tragic images and so this long photographic journey began.

The first church I photographed was in the village of Gerolakos.  … The doors were shut.  Inside, a hut had been erected next to the altar labelled ‘KEBAB’.

From then on, wherever I went, the message of devastation was the same.  I encountered abandoned churches to the point of collapse, interiors desecrated with animal and human waste, precious frescoes defaced, altars and icon stands damaged beyond recognition; churches transformed into mosques, places of entertainment, military headquarters and watchtowers; cemetaries strewn with broken headstones, the graves themseves dug up.

My camera became my weapon.  The anger and horror I experienced served only to give me the strength to continue recording this terrible destruction of my religious heritage.”

The House of Lords today agreed to refer back a recommendation that would have given force to the House of Commons purported decision to stop UK MEPs from having passes admitting them to the Parliamentary Estate.  The House of Commons decision was intended to avoid having to allow the BNP MEPs, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, access but would have had to apply to all MEPs.

In practice, this is not just a matter for the House of Commons.  The Parliamentary Estate is a single entity and there is currently no way in which a passholder can be prevented from entering both ends of the building; it follows therefore that as currently constituted both Houses have to agree to deny passes to particular categories of person.

The original decision to give MEPs passes was intended to facilitate communication between UK MEPs and the UK Parliament and, when the issue was brought to the Lords today, the unanimous view expressed was that this interchange was valuable and important.

There are some 12,000 passholders with access to the Parliamentary Estate – the occasional access by MEPs has not produced any visible problems.

Summing up Lord Brabazon of Tara said:

“The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I think I can honestly say that I have heard enough. [Laughter] Seldom have I heard such unanimous opposition by noble Lords on all sides and of all political complexions to a House Committee report. I can say that the committee should indeed reconsider this matter, taking into account what has been said today, and we will therefore do just that. Perhaps I may say that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is absolutely correct to refer this matter back to the House Committee, so I recommend that the House should agree with his amendment.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.”

What was left unsaid was: why give Nick Griffin and his sidekick another opportunity to claim martyrdom?

Those who doubt the clarity of purpose of the mission in Afghanistan should listen to the interview on Radio 4′s “Today” programme this morning with Captain Andrew Tiernan of the Grenadier Guards.  He is on leave and about to return to Afghanistan.   This is his thrid tour of duty and he is clear about the progress that has been made and the importance of the role that British troops are fulfilling.

At the beginning of the interview it was made clear that his appearance on the programme was not at the behest of the Ministery of Defence, but was a consequence of his expressing his frustration to his mother about the way in which the work that he and his colleagues are doing in Afghanistan is being portrayed in the news media.

He emphasised that talk about a pull-out is undermining the work that they are doing and demonstrates a failure to support the troops out there.

I hope his message is taken to heart by those in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties who are sniping at the clarity of the mission or are toying with calling for our troops to be pulled out as some sort of  pre-election stunt.

My attention has been drawn to an Editorial in the Washington Times, which despite its slightly over-the-top tone does highlight the dilemmas inherent in getting bogged down in the “to profile or not to profile” debate.  It is worth quoting in full:

“Do counter-terrorism measures targeting bombers who dress as women offend the rights of transexuals? This is one of the pressing questions addressed in a new United Nations report on “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.”

The 23-page document is the ultimate politically correct guide to combating terrorism. It is based on the work of U.N. special rapporteur Martin Scheinin, who notes that “immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.” The impact on transvestites (cross-dressers) and “intersex” individuals (those in the midst of a sex change) is even more dramatic.

Security always involves trade-offs. Everyone is subject to the inconveniences necessary to keep our society safe, and the impact varies by personal circumstances. Those who travel put up with more than those who do not. People with metal medical implants set off detectors more often. Those who live in Washington encounter more security restrictions than those who live in Peoria. Traditional Muslim women cannot go into banks wearing face-covering veils, a fact that has nothing to do with religion but with the bank’s legitimate interest in not allowing masked people on the premises. This last conflict is a case of cultural insensitivity – namely the veiled woman’s insensitivity to the bank’s cultural norm of not wanting to be robbed.

The U.N. report condemns profiling as a form of stereotyping. But profiling in practice is not based on mindless bigotry but on observed patterns of behavior. Suicide terrorists have used “belly bombs” that make them look like pregnant women, since pregnant women were profiled as a lesser threat and could more easily get through checkpoints. Young, single white women traveling alone to and from West Africa may be subject to additional scrutiny when going through customs because drug smugglers began using them as mules precisely because they had previously not been subject to scrutiny. Terrorists and criminals thrive on exploiting these types of behavior patterns, but since, according to the U.N., they would exist in a politically correct world, we should ignore them.

The politically correct U.N. report is remarkable in its thoroughness. Extraordinary rendition is a process of grabbing terrorists off the street and packing them off to a different country for prosecution or interrogation. The report notes the adverse effects of extraordinary rendition on the wives of terrorists and its impairment of their enjoyment of “the right to adequate housing, and the right to family life.”

Presumably rendition is an occupational hazard of being a professional terrorist; if the wife, husband or “life partner” of the bad guy is inconvenienced because the breadwinner suddenly vanishes, we counsel next time marrying an accountant.

The U.N. report underscores the lessons of the 1990s when an overweening focus on politically correct counter-terrorism stifled imagination, hobbled intelligence and law enforcement and created seams for terrorists to exploit. Sensitivity to religion placed mosques off limits for surveillance, making them ideal terrorist headquarters. Emphasis on strict process created a wall between FBI intelligence and criminal investigations that materially contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The U.N. report explicitly argues for a return to the previous failed framework, recommending that states “abandon the use of a “war paradigm” when countering terrorism because of the “adverse impacts” it has on “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals.”

These people should understand that this is nothing personal. If a cross-dresser faces additional scrutiny to make sure he is not a terrorist in disguise, that is the price he pays for the freedom to dress that way in the first place. He should blame the terrorists who trampled on his “lifestyle choice” and who, given the opportunity, would saw off his head with a buck knife. Now that’s discrimination.”

In many ways the decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is a strange decision.

I am an enormous admirer of the new US President and delighted with many of the changes in the US stance on a wide range of topics that have been initiated in his first few months in office.  But so far these are all changes of stance.  They have yet to be translated into solid achievements.  I hope they will be.

However, to quote former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo: “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.”  Obama is of course now governing, but his foreign policy initiatives are still by and large at the campaign stage.  Making things happen is genuinely difficult; wishing for them is easier.

Thus, the Nobel citation stresses his “vision”, the “new climate” he is creating whereby “dialogue and negotiation” are the preferred instruments for resolving conflicts, and the “more constructive role” that the USA is taking on climate change.  The citation is right that all of these are a breath of fresh air and potentially set a new direction with a values-based approach to global issues.

Capitalising on this new direction and achieving sustainable solutions to these global issues, however, necessarily remains a long way off.  Normally, the Nobel Prize is awarded for a “result” or at the very least tangible progress – for example, US President Woodrow Wilson’s award in 1919 celebrated the achievements that had led to the formation of the League of Nations (even if the US Congress then declined to allow the USA to join).

Presumably, the intention of the award to Obama is to encourage other World Leaders to follow his lead.  I hope it succeeds, but I am not sure that that is the proper purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize.

No sooner had I finished my previous post on the dilemma that David Cameron has over Europe and the Lisbon Treaty than I discover that Mayor Boris Johnson has spoken out, skilfully prodding the sensitive skin over David Cameron’s carefully nuanced position on the issue.

Who says ambition is dead?

I’m sure David Cameron will be OK.  Old Etonians are taught how to watch their backs.