“Fog in Channel – Continent cut off”. The old apocryphal headline may no longer apply in this age of Eurostar and instant digital communications, but its spirit remains all too present in British politics. David Cameron’s government wishes to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, and even refused to sign up to a new EU directive against human trafficking because of its qualified majority voting requirements. The Liberal Democrats are both unwilling and unable to exercise any restraining influence, either here or on the issue of the Tories’ unsavoury far-right allies in the European Parliament.

So far, so predictable. It suits both Cameron and Clegg to keep quiet about Europe; the former avoids evoking memories of the 1990s Tory civil war and Maastricht “bastards,” while the latter draws a veil over yet another colossal Lib Dem sellout. But the issue was also hardly raised at all in the Labour leadership campaign, except for Ed Balls trumpeting his opposition to Britain joining the euro. He may well have been vindicated on that front, but in truth a much wider debate is needed, and Ed Miliband needs to show that Labour’s “new generation” is serious and committed towards shaping a progressive European agenda.

Labour has had a conflicted relationship with “Europe” and its various stages of political union, ever since Ernie Bevin rejected Jean Monet’s 1950s plan for a European Coal and Steel Community because “the Durham Miners wouldn’t buy it”. Political historian Peter Hennessy has explained that this opposition reflected both the workers’ concerns that they would lose control of the just-newly nationalised heavy industries, but also how those same men had fought across Europe just a decade before as the Durham Light Infantry, and would be loath to share any form of power or sovereignty with their former foes.

More than half a century later, these old suspicions and enmities have dwindled but Labour has remained restricted by a parochial Weltanschauung. Tony Blair promised in 1997 to put Britain “at the heart of Europe” but rapidly found himself constrained first by New Labour’s timidity towards the tabloid press (remember The Sun’s headline describing then-German finance minister Oskar Lafontaine as “the most dangerous man in Europe” over tax harmonization proposals?), and then by the toxic fallout from the Iraq War and Donald Rumsfeld’s distinctions between “Old” and “New” Europe.

Partly as a result of his closeness with George W. Bush, Blair became viewed with especial suspicion by the leaders of Labour’s fellow socialist and social democrat parties on the Continent. Relationships with the French Parti Socialiste were always tense because of Blair’s (understandable) efforts to develop a good relationship with President Chirac and indeed worsened when the Anglo-French ties soured over Iraq. The nadir was Blair’s (bilingual) YouTube message of congratulations to Nicolas Sarkozy upon his election in 2007 – which makes for even more uncomfortable viewing now than it did then, given the French President’s racist expulsion of Roma families and his mercurial arrogance.

Despite an initial good rapport with Germany’s Gerhard Schröder in the late 1990s and excited talk of a “neue Mitte” to accompany the Third Way, New Labour’s relationship with the Social Democrats also suffered from Iraq and the wider suspicion that Blair would always side with the US rather than Europe. And the close personal ties Blair forged with José Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi (the holidays! the bandanas!) only served to strengthen suspicions amongst Labour’s European sister parties that he was never really “one of us” – which also explains the distinct lack of enthusiasm in this constituency for his ill-fated bid to become President of the new European Council last year.

Gordon Brown meanwhile had consciously cultivated a Eurosceptic reputation when Chancellor. Once Prime Minister, he became a belated convert to EU cooperation and coordination, particularly amid the financial crisis and Britain’s presidency of the G20, but he was also sadly not averse to occasional attempts at populist rhetoric. His infamous call for “British jobs for British workers” not only backfired domestically but also dismayed European observers and friends who saw it as yet another example of British insularity.

So Brother Ed has much to do to develop good relationships and ties with Labour’s natural allies in Europe. And this should indeed be a priority. In his inaugural speech he recalled both the humiliations of the Major government’s “beef war” with the EU in the mid-90s, and the far more serious and shaming failure of Europe to prevent genocide in Bosnia – forever encapsulated by the capitulation of the Dutch “peacekeepers” without a shot fired in Srebrenica in July 1995.

Britain can never again be on the sidelines, forever obstructing, carping and blocking – and Labour can never again reject and alienate its natural allies when the problems and challenges all progressives face transcend national borders and regulators. The turbulent events of the past few years have shown that despite being outside the eurozone, British economic and social prosperity remains dependent on effective cooperation and strategic coordination with our EU partners, whether on regulating immigration, tackling tax evasion or responding to the wider demands and dynamics of a globalised economy.

At the same time, and as was so eloquently argued here last week, social democracy and the whole European centre-left is in electoral crisis. The SPD is out of office and under pressure from the Greens. Sweden’s Social Democrats remain in opposition as the far-right makes gains. The French PS is riven by internecine strife and risks squandering the talents of its two best-placed presidential hopefuls, Ségolène Royal and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, because of (a) institutionalized sexism, and (b) suspicion that DSK’s tenure as head of the IMF has made him too “Anglo-Saxon”. The Italian left in all its various hues cannot even land convincing blows against Berlusconi in his dotage and has effectively ceded the main opposition role to his former ally (and former Fascist) Gianfranco Fini of the Alleanza Nazionale.

In contrast, Labour’s own situation does not perhaps look quite so bad (up 10% in the polls since the election defeat) – but rather than taking this as an excuse for schadenfreude, it shows how pooling resources and trying to develop a joint strategy is a win-win option for the centre-left on both sides of the Channel.

The irony is of course that there is one Labour politician who is uniquely placed to influence this debate. Not former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, not former EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson, but Catherine Ashton, the EU’s new “foreign minister” or, to give her her full title, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In her unassuming way (and despite facing condescension, sexism and snobbery from many in Brussels), Ashton has been quietly establishing her reputation as an effective operator since taking up the job last December – most recently, by persuading Serbia to drop a case at the International Court of Justice regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence, thus paving the way for further reconciliation and European integration in the Balkans. That so few people are aware of Ashton’s role and responsibilities speaks volumes about the narrow focus of British politics and journalism. But if Ed Miliband wants to make Labour’s voice heard again in Europe – and to use Europe as another means of skewering the Con Dems, she should be at the top of his “must call” list. Our Euro-vision must never again get lost in translation.

William French is a Labour member and former foreign correspondent.

So carbon capture and storage is finally happening. Scientific American reports on the first power station to not only capture carbon dioxide- which in this case you do by liquifying the gas with bakers’ ammonia then separating it- but also store it 2,375 metres under West Virginia.

The New Haven ‘Mountaineer’ project (pictured right) only captures 1.5% of the CO2 currently. When it is expanded to 20% of the Alstom’s plant, it will cost an extra 4c per Kilowatt hour on top of the 5c that the plant currently costs. The research and development outlay will be $700million. This isn’t cheap but it is becoming a reality and that is what is important- with some Federal funds thrown in.

This is all good news for the UK government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change published its Framework for the Development of Clean Coal earlier this week alongside a series of National Planning Statements on energy policy.

Coal currently provides almost a third of our energy and is extremely polluting and this is not a trivial issue. My instinct is that we should build no more coal-fired power stations at all. Given the uncertainty about whether technology will actually reduce carbon emissions at an affordable cost and if the carbon can stored safely and without leakage I had a degree of initial scepticism. It just sounded too good to be true.

However, that would be the right policy response if the UK was the only country in the world but it’s not.

The reality is that others will continue to build coal-fired power plants regardless of whether we do or not. Just take China (sorry China I’m always picking on you which is mean): 80% of its energy comes from coal-fired power stations; it now consumes more coal that Europe, Japan and the US combined; it may build some of the most efficient power stations in the world but its emissions are still forecast to increase by 3% per year according to the IEA; and it is building these power stations at an eye-popping rate of one per week.

So we need to have a crack at developing the technology. It might as well be here in the UK. Ed Miliband’s plan is for any new power plant to be completely CCS from 2020 with the four proposed CCS demonstration projects fully retrofitted by 2025.

Of course, there is not just an environmental consideration here but there is naked economic self-interest involved as well. There could be a £40billion market in this creating 30,000 to 60,000 jobs in the process. In the dry inhuman language ofeconomics, I guess you could describe that as a ‘positive externality.’

In the context of the credit crunch and as we look to re-balance our economy away from an over-reliance on financial services that is no bad thing. It is important to state though that the economic opportunities offered by clean coal are not sufficient reason to pursue its technological development.

However, when you combine the environmental benefits with the economic and our energy requirements then what might seem like a policy of evasion becomes a compelling proposition instead. If we all going to keep on building coal-fired power stations then we have to do something about the emissions. This may be a solution; it’s worth a try.

It has the following elements:

- Members elected on an AV+ basis using the old European constituencies with a regional top up.
- Elections would be every five years and coincide with European elections.
- No member of the new House of Lords can be a member of the government. If they join the Government they would have to resign their seat.
- A minimum age of 40.
- Parties would commit to selecting candidates on the basis of expertise and to reflect the diversity of the UK.

Why make these changes?

“By having a different source of authority – and timing – this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote – and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system.”

Which brings me nicely on to David Cameron’s absolutely barmy intention to introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill (it didn’t really bring me nicely on to this but whatever….) There are two possibilities for the Bill:

- It is meaningless. Therefore it achieves nothing but may simply make the UK look silly. Parliament is already sovereign- we can leave the EU at any time.
- It is meaningful. In which case, we are leaving the European Union. European law supercedes UK law. Any UK law passed which suggests otherwise is incompatible with EU treaties and, therefore, we would have to leave. Potty.

Fraser Nelson writes:

“Mr Cameron’s proposed Sovereignty Bill — declaring the primacy of English law over the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — will also be meaningless unless it includes the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”

Er, that is not meaningless I’m afraid. That would mean that the UK is leaving the EU. Quite meaningful, I would say. I’d be interested to hear whether Fraser Nelson has got confirmation that is what the legislation would contain. If it does, then Cameron is committing to the UK going it alone.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is Kenneth Clarke describing such legislation as: “fundamentally incompatible with EU membership.”

All this lets the eurosceptic genie out of the bottle. He is placing himself in a position of fundamental and ongoing conflict with the EU. Where does that end up? It ends up in only one place: a referendum on leaving the EU as he won’t get his own way. Playing with fire Mr Cameron.

Post script: The BBC adds a bit more colour to the story. Pierre Lallouche is simply saying what others are thinking.

Of course, they are going to keep all this bottled up. There’s an electorate to be hoodwinked and an election to be won don’t you know. Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome, tries to ride both horses- loyalty and euroscpeticism. It will work for a few months but will explode in David Cameron’s face should he win next May.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in Paris, Berlin, and Madrid when the first attempt to re-negotiate the Treaties is made. David Cameron may well be prepared for a hostile reaction. I’m sure Margaret Thatcher’s ‘give us our money back’ rhetoric could be resuscitated. He could conveniently forget that two years after Fontainebleau, Mrs Thatcher signed the Single European Act, the biggest single expansion of European power since the Treaty of Rome. Maybe he could be honest and call his rallying cry: ‘give me my party back.’ But he’ll be disappointed. He won’t be met with hostility. He’ll be met with ridicule.

Maybe once they’ve wiped the tears of laughter away, they will decide to get all pragmatic. Sure, you can have those social and employment rights opt outs- things like maternity leave, guaranteed holidays, rights for agency workers (which also protects non-agency worker from having their terms competed away)- but there’s a price. Um, we’ll have that £3billion rebate for a start. You want to reform CAP? Silly boy. I hope you don’t mind Mr Cameron, but we’ve put you with Iceland and Slovenia for the dinner. Don’t worry your table gets jelly and ice cream rather than grown-ups’ puddings. You just love jelly and ice cream, don’t you?

(As an aside, what happens if David Cameron does succeed in a re-negotiation? Would that not be a Treaty change? So would he not be bound to have a referendum in accordance with his own promise? And what if he then lost that referendum? Just a thought….)

Jessica Asato makes the important point that Labour shouldn’t just carp from the side-lines and revel in the Tories repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for no purpose. We should ‘make the case.’ But what is that case?

Well, it’s about national sovereignty actually. The EU, far from being a dilution of national sovereignty, is a reclaiming of national sovereignty. In a world of large regional powers, with open commerce, movement of people, global communications, and large-scale cross-border environmental damage, there is little use in defending formal sovereignty. Instead, you have to find ways of cooperating with like-minded nations to confront these challenges. That is a reclaim of de facto sovereignty- you have a greater say over the future of your people.

What is the consequence of this? We can better manage and grow our economy, fight crime and terrorism, manage our borders, reduce climate change, protect the rights of our workers, influence global affairs and confront the multiplicity of risks that modern nations face.

Is Europe perfect? No, and we have to be clear about that. We have to support the EU but also articulate a strong case for reform. It is woefully undemocratic. What say do we have over the appointment of the new president of the Council? Or the next president of the Commission? Or the Commission itself? We can only influence these appointments through the European Parliament and so there is little public debate. There is a severe deficit of transparency- what actually happens in Council meetings? The continuation of the CAP in its expansive form is a disgrace and completely unjustified.

None of this can change without enjoying a degree of influence. None of these things are costs that outweigh the benefits but nor are they insignificant. But our influence over our own affairs and our global influence (just listen to the noises coming out of Washington) depends on being a strong member of the EU. Any movement towards the periphery away from the core is detrimental to our national interest and our sovereignty.

Ultimately, that is the cost of a Conservative government. David Cameron has already placed himself on the very periphery of the EU- through his rheroric; his clubbing together with a rag-bag of anti-semites, homophobes, and climate change deniers in the European Parliament, sticking two fingers up to President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in the meantime; and with his determination to suck Europe back into an institutional wrangle. That is not in Britain’s self-interest. That is not statesmanship.

*The image is courtesy of the Ministry of Truth.
** It is also worth reading Next Left on this.

Some leapt for joy, others were less impressed but the moment of this week’s UN Conference on Climate Change was clearly President Hu Jintao of China’s speech.

The Telegraph found it underwhelming. The Guardian thought it very significant.

Nicholas Stern was full of warm praise for China and also India as he sees that they have moved on significantly and will reduce their carbon emissions by a greater amount than almost anyone else compared with trend (perhaps….) To suggest that China and India are leading the way is, to put it mildly, over-egging the pudding somewhat. The rhetoric from China was indeed significant but it has been creeping in this direction for some time.

Of course, the US, despite the commitment from President Obama, is both the real culprit and the real villain when it comes to climate change. Europe has embraced its responsibility to significantly cut its carbon emissions and now it would seem so is Japan. Friends of the Earth was right that President Obama’s speech was a disappointment. But his hands are tied.

This is the real issue with China and why it is not playing a leading role as Nicholas Stern suggests. Unless it commits to some measurable target of carbon intensity reduction to begin with and then declare a commitment to actually cut its emissions within, say, a decade then Congress will have an excuse not to act. If they are genuinely planning the cuts then they should commit to them. That will enable President Obama to more forcibly demand action from Congress. This game of playing hard to get that China is playing benefits absolutely no-one.

There is an attitude in the US that China doesn’t play by the rules. It had exactly the same attitude towards Japan in the past. See the recent decision to take action against Chinese tyre imports. It is part of the mindset that China is a free-rider. If China fails to agree to actual targets then suspicions will be raised and the US will have an excuse not to act.

Can all this be resolved by December? Possibly. However, even it is not December is the beginning not the end of a process. There does need to be a seizing of the moment while international attention is on this issue so there is no better time for China, India and the US to make meaningful commitments.

What is important is that whatever happens in Copenhagen, there is an understanding that this is just one staging post on a long and grueling road. There is a good piece in this month’s edition of Foreign Affairs by Michael Levi- Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth (subscribers only)- that makes this precise point. I don’t think we should let China off the hook just because Copenhagen marks the beginning of a process rather than its end-point and Levi seems to suggest that we should be willing to do so. But the characterisation of Copenhagen as a WTO-style process rather than a one-off treaty is useful.

What this week has shown is how far there is still to travel. I’m more towards the Telegraph’s scepticism than the Guardian/ Stern’s praise for China. In fact, I don’t think that the US, China, or India get even close to a five out of ten for their performance this week.

Not good enough…..but there is still time. Just.

A few things have caught my eye this week. One was a good piece on the future of green motoring in the Economist. Of course, if I was Jeremy Clarkson, I would rave about the Tesla Roadster and moan about the Chevrolet Volt (us Europeans get the wimpy sounding Ampera instead but we are wimpy I guess.) Actually, the Tesla was so good that Jeremy Clarkson spat out his steak and chips and lost his voice as a result. Here is his review (i.e. boyish drag race):

However, it wasn’t without a hitch to say the least. One of the major issues is the need to charge the car and the time it takes. So, exciting as the Tesla Roadster may be in a pioneering sort of way, the basic issues of battery life remain. Step forward Better Place.

Better Place can’t resolve the Tesla’s apparent reliability issues but they aim to solve the charging issue. They do this in two ways. Firstly, they will install an efficient charge point in your garage or in shopping centres etc.

As they say on their website:

“Better Place intends to deploy charge spots at private homes, workplaces and public locations such as parking lots and streets.”

Local authorities take note- are you speaking to Better Place?

Perhaps just as interesting is their plan to introduce battery replacement stations (like a petrol station but with batteries.) At the moment this is a good solution for high consuming commercial vehicles like Tokyo’s major taxi company Nihon Kotsu (see post script below!) who have contracted with Better Place with funding from a Government Agency, the Natural Resources and Energy Agency.

How does battery switching work? It takes just over a minute and here is a demonstration:

A cheer for Lithium-ion technology. And a second cheer for thin film solar panels and for the second featured company, Applied Materials.

In an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday, Thomas Friedman, discussed the company’s environmental technology and manufacture.

Friedman is one of the most passionate advocates for a green industrial policy in the United States. He argued that the US should become the ‘Saudi Arabia of green’ in his most recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Sorry to quote at length but it’s necessary I’m afraid:

“The other day, Splinter [Mike Splinter CEO] gave me a tour of the company’s Silicon Valley facility, culminating with a visit to its “war room,” where Applied maintains a real-time global interaction with all 14 solar panel factories it’s built around the world in the last two years. I could only laugh because crying would have been too embarrassing.

Not a single one is in America.

Let’s see: five are in Germany, four are in China, one is in Spain, one is in India, one is in Italy, one is in Taiwan and one is even in Abu Dhabi. I suggested a new company motto for Applied Materials’s solar business: “Invented here, sold there.”

He goes on to praise Germany for a coordinated approach to its renewable energy policy that allows: freedom of generation; access to the grid; transparent and economic pricing. Germany? 50,000 renewable energy jobs which Friedman reports is second only to its car industry. The government is playing catch-up in the UK. We may be too late on solar. Let Germany have solar power. Our prize is wind and wave power. If we had got off the blocks quicker then the Vestas turbine blade manufacturing facility on the Isle of Wight might have been saved. That was a warning shot that the government is heeding.

Finally, a quick mention for the Secretary-General of the UN who spoke to The Guardian yesterday and expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in discussions between the developed and developing world (courtesy of Left Foot Forward.)

Next week, sees a UN summit on climate change (referred to in the Guardian piece.) G20 Voice who kindly enabled me to cover the G20 Summit back in April have rebranded themselves and will be at the conference simply as Voice. Expect some coverage of the great bloggers (for instance) who will be in New York next week.

Post script: Speaking of Tokyo’s taxis…..I ended up with a taxi driver last night in Tokyo who spoke unbelievably good English. Why? He used to be an international sports photographer and publisher and lived in Holland Park for three years where he used to hang out with George Best…..and was also a friend of Diego Maradona (whom he introduced to Tokyo night clubs.) Enough said (yes, I did ask and yes, he did answer….) And now he’s driving Nihon Kotsu taxis….long story.

However, from the perspective of the left this does not mean that there are no parameters. We need to understand those parameters alongside a rethink about what the left will mean in the next decade or two.

The article concludes:

This can’t become some exercise in tracking the median voter and designing party programmes to simply appeal to the successors of Worcester Woman alone. The next left must be broad based and pluralistic. The traditional working-class is diminished and fragmented. It cannot be taken for granted anymore. Any programme with social justice by definition must embody an ethos of helping the least advantaged.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm has said: “The European left relied on a working class that no longer exists in its old form, and in order to recover it will need to find a new constituency.” Well, we can agree with that as long as the new constituency has a place for this metamorphosed working class.

The political debate and discussion has proceeded at a furious pace on the left over recent months. It must have context. That context is an understanding of a Britain that has changed considerably even since Labour came to power. In so doing, the future path of the left will not be in any way determined. However, at least it won’t be wandering unaided in the dark.

My stint on LabourList continues. Today I’ve put up great posts by Rowenna Davis on the gender pay gap, Will Straw on the need for Labour to put the environment at the centre of its politics, and Morys Ireland on whether movement politics is dead in the wake of reports that Conservative membership has fallen by 25% since David Cameron became leader.

I have spent the past few weeks enjoying the women’s European football championships. As per the stereotype of an Englishman, I am football obsessed (although not by the Premiership) and consider myself fairly knowledgeable about what constitutes a good game of football.

The women’s game at the highest level has it all, passion, skill, luck, cheating, fouling and dodgy referees, and is excellent entertainment. It is particularly attractive when you consider the relative cost and availability of tickets for this kind of prestige tournament, not to mention the accessibility and reliability of the tournament venues.

In light of this, I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of coverage in many media outlets. In particular, the only comment I found from the Guardian newspaper, usually a fairly decent source by UK standards, was on their podcast Football Weekly.

They had received several comments from listeners about their lack of coverage of the women’s Euro, and the host asked his team of “pundits” why. The immediate response was “Because it’s rubbish.” I cannot imagine a similar response on a Tennis Weekly or Athletics Weekly podcast, not that those sports would suffer from such a lack of coverage.

Why is it, that in football this kind anachronistic “laddish” behaviour is tolerated? Is it because the best women’s team, Germany, would probably lose to the Luxembourg men’s team? So what…James Ward could probably beat both the Williams sisters, and the world record holding women’s 100 m runner, Flo Jo, wouldn’t have even qualified for the Olympics in the men’s competition. Yet millions of people watch women’s sports, as most people want to be entertained and see people achieve greatness regardless of gender.

To arbitrarily decide that certain sports are only for men is ridiculously short sighted. The enclaves of “Men’s” sports are increasingly isolated and eroding, and their defence echoes the desperate revisionism of other failing institutions.

Unfortunately, I see the influence of similar prejudice on a daily basis, as science is another field where men overwhelmingly dominate the authorities. This means men define the conditions for success, and the only “right” path is the one well trodden by male ancestors. Hence, aggressive posturing, conceited declarations and absolutism are characteristic of a good scientist, whereas doubt, caution and humility are all signs of weakness. So a good scientist is a wise scientist…very dangerous.

In this environment, either women bend to the prevailing winds of testosterone or break…there is no room for their world view.

Yet, as in sports, their approach is often superior for the overall aim – in sport, the aim is entertainment, in science it is understanding. We need a lot more rubbish in both.