The Campaign Ends

David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, has announced that the Conservatives would not hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.

And, to be fair, this is the pragmatic route. It is done and dusted- as he notes, it now becomes part of the law of Europe, and the changes it introduces will not simply vanish because we have a referendum. His comparison is with a referendum to stop the Sun rising.

All the main parties went into the last general election promising a referendum. Labour and the Liberal Democrats dropped their commitment once it became politically awkward- the Conservatives held out for as long as possible.

Of course, people are going to be disappointed. Daniel Hannan, Member of the European Parliament for South East England, has resigned as the Conservatives' legal affairs spokesman over it, and Roger Helmer, MEP for East Midlands, has resigned as employment spokesman. But they were always on the fringes of the Conservatives anyway- by the time of the last European elections, neither of them were sitting with the other Conservative MEPs in the European People's Party/European Democrats group.

Can I just emphasise that Hannan is not your common-or-garden knee-jerk Eurosceptic. He opposes unnecessary big Government, whether that Government is in Brussels, London or the town hall. The old Treaty of Maastricht, which created the European Union, introduced the idea of subsidarity, where decisions are made at the lowest necessary level. Now, in EU terms that simply meant that Europe shouldn't be doing stuff which is best done at national level, but Hannan is one of those who takes subsidarity to its logical extension- e.g. elected mayors, "direct democracy" etc.

Cameron's plans for the next step seem a bit vague. Yes, you could amend the European Communities Act 1972 so that any future changes, such as another Treaty or adopting the € would be subject to a referendum. But, what is to stop a future Parliament changing that, e.g. a future Government wants to introduce the €, realises it won't get its way in a referendum, so draws up the Single European Currency Bill in a way that it has a little clause exempting it from the European Communities (Amendment) Act 2010.

What about the Accession Treaties? Whenever a new country joins the European Union it is done by a Treaty which has to be ratified by all the other member nations. Hence, when Iceland and Croatia join, there will be a Treaty which will be ratified in Britain by an Act of Parliament. Does Cameron mean- as the logic of his words imply- that we will all be invited to traipse to the polling booths to vote on Icelandic and Croatian membership? What if the next Accession Treaty carried slight modifications to Lisbon?

Even saying that a referendum will only be held if it transfers power to the European Union is unclear. After all, when Iceland and Croatia join, Britain's voting strength in the European Council and Council of Ministers decreases, and we will have fewer MEPs.

Because we have no written constitution, unlike many other EU countries, we have no explicit legal guarantee that the last word on our laws stays in Britian.

Interesting about turn there- traditionally, the Conservatives opposed a written constitution as it gave too much powers to judges at the expense of Parliament. Yet here, Cameron is effectively backing powerful judges- maybe a sign of how the new Supreme Court has changed the political environment. Rather than emphasising the sovereignty of "Crown-in-Parliament", and calling for powers to be brought back from Brussels to Parliament, he is calling for powers to move from Brussels to the Supreme Court.

He calls for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to ensure that it is Britain with the final word on European law. Does he mean that the European Court of Justice will have no jurisdiction here (except in matters which are cross-border), or that the Supreme Court will have the job of interpreting how European law is interpreted here?

Note that he is not calling for a codified constituion. The difference we were taught in History A-level lessons is that in many countries you can pick up a document called "The Constitution", while in Britain we legislation that could be called "constitutional" (e.g. Crown & Parliament Recognition Act 1689, Union with Scotland Act 1706, Union with England Act 1706, Parliament Act 1911, Coronation Oath Act 1911, Parliament Act 1949, Life Peerages Act 1958, European Communities Act 1972, Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998, Northern Ireland Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, House of Lords Act 1999, Constitutional Reform Act 2003) but these are not drawn together into a single document, and constitutional legislation doesn't differ from other legislation in the way it is drawn up, amended or repealed.

The other thing to note is that Cameron is not calling for a return to the status quo, accepting that Lisbon has happened. When the Conservatives return to power, it will not be 30 April 1997 again- we won't see the hereditary peers a leaping back to their seats in the House of Lords, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be setting the Bank of England interest rate, Members of the Scottish Parliament will not arrive at work to find a "Closed until further notice" sign on the door etc.

The Right Nation

I read today about how last year, when running for the American Vice-President, Sarah Palin had to be told who the "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" was.

I am very surprised at that- an American politican wanted to know who the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is.

I wonder how many of those sniggering at Palin's "ignorance" refer to Gordon Brown as "Prime Minister of Great Britain" (a post that last existed in 1800) or our Head of State as "Queen of England" (a post that last existed in 1707)?

Perhaps being Alaskan has something to do with wanting to get it right. What I mean by that is that perhaps she is used to- like the people of Northern Ireland- of being overlooked because home is "out of the way" or "non-contiguous", and someone in that position would probably not be happy if there were a term for the 48 contiguous states which people overseas used to describe the USA as a whole, similar to using "Great Britain" to refer to the United Kingdom. It is interesting that US President Barack Obama (originally from Hawaii) also tends to use the correct term for our country.

The correct terms are:

• Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales
• United Kingdom is Great Britain with Northern Ireland

The Presidential Poet

Hair blows in the wind
After years there is still wind
Sadly no hair

Now, that might go down in history along with "I have a dream", "We will fight them on the beaches" and the Gettysburg Address.

Or it might not.

There's plenty more where that came from- the pen of Herman van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister, and apparently now the front-runner to be President of the European Council.

Van Rompuy's unique selling point is that he leads a nation split along linguistic and cultural lines. Belgium is divided east to west into a northern Dutch-speaking and a southern French-speaking area. There is a tiny bit to the east that is German-speaking (and, as we had drilled into us in GCSE History lessons, Eupen and Malmedy were transferred from Germany to Belgium under the Treaty of Versailles, and they are still there, a small part of Belgium, just over the border from the ancient German city of Aachen). The capital, Brussels, geographically lies in the Dutch-speaking area, but is legally bilingual.

Van Rompuy fulfils the criteria of coming from the centre-right, with his party being the Flemish Christian Democrats (Dutch-speaking, part of the European People's Party), sitting in coalition with the Humanist Democratic Centre (French-speaking, part of the EPP), the Reformist Movement (French-speaking, part of the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe), the Flemish Liberals & Democrats (Dutch-speaking, part of the ALDE) and the Francophone (i.e. French-speaking) Socialist Party (part of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats).

At some point soon, Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish Prime Minister, will share his shortlist of possible Presidents with other members of the European Council, and by the end of the month, we ought to know who is chosen.

Whatever Happened To Easy Rail Travel?

Next September, I plan to be in Armagh for an astronomy conference- not that I ever need much of an excuse to go to Northern Ireland.

Now, these days we are encouraged to go green, and to use the train for short (i.e. domestic travel) rather than flying. And it has to be said that the Channel Tunnel has improved rail links to the rest of Europe- apparently, by train, the nearest capital city to London is Brussels (having displaced Cardiff). From Southampton, it seems that the Benelux countries and parts of France and Germany are closer than the north-west of England.

But, the rail system has contracted. We used to have the Virgin Trains crossing the country- when I would travel home from work I would frequently get on a train which had come from Edinburgh- there was one which came all the way from Aberdeen.

But now the east coast line is awkward, as the Cross-Country Trains here simply go up to Birmingham and then over to the west coast- and even then only as far as Manchester. Whatever happened to the recent era when you could hop on a train at Carlisle (or even Glasgow) and make it to Southampton without changing?

If I am to go to Northern Ireland using the rail network, I am going to have to spend much of two days travelling. It is only practical to get as far as Carlisle in one day (and that involves a change at Birmingham New Street, which is not ideal if you want to carry luggage from one platform to another), and then it's a train up to Glasgow Central and one down to Stranraer (there are direct Carlisle-Stranraer trains that start at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but they are for an early evening ferry, and it's getting late by the time you get to Belfast, and impractical to go on from there to Portadown, where I might be staying).

It's at times like this that you realise how annoying it is that the trains from southern England to Scotland no longer run. No wonder people abandon difficult rail journeys for the air instead.

A Quarter Day Election?

One suggestion I read today was that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, would call the general election on 25 March. An interesting suggestion.

This would require Parliament to be dissolved on 2 March- but what about the other side of the election? We have become used to the House of Commons first meeting on the Wednesday after the election- which would be 31 March, but this is the Wednesday before Easter. Would MPs really be keen to come back for a day, take the oath, elect a Speaker, and then go off on the Easter recess?

The alternative is for there to be a significant gap between the election and Parliament meeting. And this would give a Prime Minister- or potential Prime Minister- time. But, time for what?

The normal practice when an election leads to a change of Government is for the outgoing Prime Minister to have visited Buckingham Palace and resigned by early Friday afternoon. There have been two recent exceptions.

The first of these is the October 1964 election, seeing a Conservative government led by Alec Douglas-Home defeated by a Labour one led by Harold Wilson. However, this was a close election, and the Liberals saw a slight increase, which led to Douglas-Home hanging on until Friday evening, as he wanted to be sure that Labour had an overall majority (i.e. a Conservative/Liberal coalition would not be viable).

February 1974 is the other odd one. The Conservatives, under Ted Heath, lost their overall majority, and Labour were 4 seats ahead (although behind the Conservatives in votes). Heath hung on until the Monday, after talks with the Liberals came to nothing, and Wilson became Prime Minister for the second time.

If you are going to look at a coalition, time is what you need. And time is what a 25 March election gives- a fortnight at least before the House of Commons meets, and three weeks at least before the Queen's Speech. Time for two parties in a hung Parliament to meet and negotiate.

As The Ambition Of "Cherie Antoinette" To Be Europe's First Lady Fade...

It is now reported that former Prime Minister, Tony Blair (or "Boney Blair" as some are calling him to draw the comparison between him and Napoleon Bonaparte), will stand as President of the European Council if the job is "big enough", i.e. if it involves taking over responsibility for matters which are the job of the European Commission.

Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, is representing Italy at the European Council meeting due to Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, being ill, and there is one crucial difference. Berlusconi has been enthusiatic about everything to do with Blair, whereas Frattini is a more thoughtful and serious character, who comments:

There are a number of countries with doubts

and

We need as wide a consensus as possible

So, maybe Frattini actually gets it, like the Poles and the Benelux countries. Blair would be a divisive President, his time as our Prime Minister ended in failure with even his own party wanting him out.

And if, as The Times notes, Bulgaria and Portugal are not supporting Blair, that brings the number of "veto votes" to 79- with only 12 more needed to stop him.

It now seems clear that Blair is not going to be President, thankfully.

Selling Stars

At lunchtime, while doing a bit of shopping, I came across one of these "star-naming" packs, where you give a certain company loads of money and they will "name a star" for you after yourself or your loved one.

These are, of course, scams. No-one "owns" the stars. No-one has the right to sell names.

What grated was that they tried to make out that the British Library endorsed this scheme, by saying that the names are regularly given to the British Library.

I have fired off an email to them to ask on what authority do they have the right to give stars official names. Not even the International Astronomical Union has a list of official star names.

Juncker Throws His Hat In The Ring

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, has confirmed that he would be interested in the job of President of the European Council, and has criticised former Prime Minister Tony Blair's Euro-credentials, noting that the United Kingdom is not part of the eurozone (those countries using the € as their currency) nor part of the Schengen Agreement (which allows passport-free travel across much of the European Union, so you can travel from Calais to Frederikshavn without showing any ID, or even seeing signs telling you where the national borders are. To this day, I cannot be sure if I actually went to the Netherlands in that trip, or whether we went straight from Belgium to Germany).

Juncker adds:

I can't really identify any area where Britain has shown real European inspiration over the past 10 years, apart from a few advances on defence.

Finally, someone giving the message that the new President doesn't have to be Blair.

But, then there will have to be all the deals. I read that Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, believes that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, could be persuaded to support Blair if there are goodies for them, e.g. a German appointed as Vice-President of the European Commission with responsibility for the Common Foreign & Security Policy, and a Frenchperson as Commissioner for Trade.

A German in charge of "foreign policy". But who? The thing about German politics is that the Foreign Minister is almost always from the junior coalition partner. For example, during Helmut Kohl's long tenure as Chancellor of a Christian Democrat/Free Democrat coalition (October 1982 to October 1998), he would have a Foreign Minister from the Free Democrats- indeed, for most of that time it was Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who Kohl had inherited from Helmut Schmidt's Social Democrat/Free Democrat coalition. Gerhard Schroder's Social Democrat/Green coalition (October 1998 to November 2005) had the Greens' Joschka Fischer as Foreign Minister.

And Merkel's Christian Democrat/Free Democrat coalition, which took office today, has the Free Democrats' Guido Westerwelle as Foreign Minister.

The one German name that is mentioned is Wolfgang Schauble, of the Christian Democrats. But, where is his foreign policy experience? Today Merkel moved him from being Interior Minister to Finance Minister- yes, he is a long-serving senior politician, but all his experience is in domestic or economic matters.

There are two problems with a deal on the Commissioner for Trade role:

• it is currently held by the British Labour politician, Catherine Ashton. Is Brown really going to do a deal which involves the dismissal of a former Cabinet colleague?
• although the individual Governments nominate one person from their country to serve on the Commission, it is the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who allocates the roles. Of course, the European Parliament has to ratify the Commission, and this has to be agreed by the Council- but using Qualified Majority Voting. If Barroso objects to being used in a British/French/German stitch-up, then he can simply refuse to appoint Sarkozy's nominee to the Trade portfolio. In addition, Britain, France and Germany do not have enough votes in the Council to veto Barroso's new Commission.

An Odd Way To Run An Alliance

With the general election a few months away, in Northern Ireland, the Conservatives and the Ulster Unionist Party are fighting on a joint ticket.

Now, I had naturally assumed that there would either be a battle between Conservative and UUP wannabe MPs in each constituency to decide which would be the official Ulster Conservative & Unionist candidate, or that the seats would be divided between the two parties.

Instead, the plan is that the Conservative and UUP each select a candidate for each Northern Ireland constituency, and try and sort it out at a local level. If they cannot agree, the final decision is made jointly by David Cameron, the Leader of the Opposition, and Reg Empey, the UUP leader and Northern Ireland's Minister for Employment.

This is asking for trouble. If Cameron and Empey settle on a UUP candidate, then the Conservative could go and seek a seat in Great Britain. However, if a Conservative candidate is selected, then the UUP one has nowhere to go, and Empey is seen as stabbing his colleagues in the back.

On top of all this, the Democratic Unionist Party is stirring by making a "generous offer", namely that they and the UUP could decide on a single unionist candidate in both Fermanagh & South Tyrone and Belfast South. If the UUP accepts this, and decides not to stand in one of those to give the DUP a clear run, then the Conservatives have to decide whether to go along with the UUP decision or to challenge the DUP. And, in the other seat, would the DUP really encourage its members to vote Conservative if Cameron and Empey decide that there should be a Conservative candidate in that seat?

Another factor is that the sole UUP MP. Down North's Sylvia Hermon, decided not to attend the UUP conference last weekend, as she objects to the Conservative/UUP alliance and will not stand on the UCU banner- and if re-elected to the House of Commons, will not sit among the Conservative MPs. The Conservatives have chosen Ian Parsley (who contested June's elections to the European Parliament for the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland) as their candidate in Down North...

Actually, Normal People Find What This Man Did Offensive

One sad story in the local press about a teenage girl who was sexually abused and then learns that her attacker is planning to move to the same street as her. So, her mother responds by starting a petition to stop this.

The police response? Well, bear in mind that their little brains have been so stuffed full with how to be politically correct that there is simply no space in their brains for common sense or an attempt to understand how normal people think.

The petition is- they decide- "offensive" to the attacker. Diddums, it might hurt his poor ickle feelings.

View From The Tower

On Wednesdays, Daily Telegraph is back to printing the nonsense that Irwin Stelzer writes about Britain (and like this week, the rest of Europe) from his room in his Washington ivory tower.

Let's take this opportunity to pay a trip to the Europe which exists in Stelzer's imagination. This week he is babbling about the Treaty of Lisbon; the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband; and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Blair was the one man who could have made America and other countries take notice of the EU [European Union]

Ignore that reference to "and other countries". As has been clear when Stelzer has waffled about this before, Blair's Unique Selling Point for becoming President of the European Council is that he would do whatever whoever is in the Oval Office at that particular moment told him to do.

Apparently, never missing any opportunity to miss an opportunity, the eurocrats will opt for some unknown and charismatically deprived candidate.

By "eurocrats", I think Stelzer means "Heads of Government chosen by the democratic process". I would rather see a "charismatically deprived" President who gets his or her head down and works hard for the people of Europe than Blair as President.

..the rumour that Miliband will be the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the title concocted to conceal the true role of the Foreign Minister...

Oh dear, oh dear. This "concocted" title has existed for years- Lisbon merges it with the European Commissioner for External Affairs, and makes the holder of the combined post the Vice-President of the European Commission. Do try and keep up, Stelzer.

..if Miliband is the choice of the clique charged with making the selection (nothing as messy as a democratic vote by citizens...)

Oh, I see! Europe is undemocratic because the "Foreign Minister" is not directly elected by the citizens.

This time last year, the American elections were big news, as they prepared to vote on whether the President should be Barack Obama or John McCain; whether the Vice-President should be Joe Biden or Sarah Palin; and whether the Secretary of State should be Hillary Clinton or, er, sorry, who was the Republican candidate for Secretary of State? Was it Condoleezza Rice seeking re-election?

How did this work? Did they have a single ticket so you cast one vote and then each state's Electoral College members voted on who should be President, who should be Vice-President and who should be Secretary of State? Did people vote for a separate Electoral College which chose the Secretary of State? Or did the people simply elect the Secretary of State directly?

OK, I was being a bit flippant, but while Stelzer is on his high horse about how undemocratic the EU is, he should bear in mind that his own country is- on the same standards he uses to judge us- undemocratic as well.

Blocking Blair

With the Czech Constitutional Court putting off its decision on the Treaty of Lisbon until next month, this week's meeting of the European Council is not going to see the new President of the European Council chosen.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has made the odd suggestion that the new President should be somebody who "stops the traffic" in places like Washington, Moscow, Beijing etc. At first I thought this meant that senior European politicians would be hanging around outside schools at opening and closing times, and asking lollipop ladies whether they wanted to be President.

What it seems he meant is that the President should be someone who enjoys the trappings of office, who will have things like a limousine with flashing lights, and police outriders.

Personally, I couldn't care less what Washington, Moscow, Beijing, or others think of the new President. What is important is what London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Helsinki etc. think of the President. Better to have a President who quietly gets on with the job than one who sits in the back of a big car, completely full of themselves.

Of course, the person that Miliband has in mind is the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The President will be chosen by the European Council using the Qualified Majority Voting system. Now, we need to take a step back first and see where the Council model comes from.

The European Parliament is more of a Congress than a Parliament, with the executive (the European Commission) separate from the legislature (the Parliament). In this mix there is the Council.

The model for the Council of Ministers (which is called the European Council when it's the Heads of Government and the President of the European Commission meeting) is the German Bundesrat, the upper chamber of the parliament in Berlin.

But the Bundesrat is an unusual organisation. With Germany as a federal nation, it is where the states (Lander) are represented. But people don't vote for the Bundesrat- well, not exactly. Nor do the state legislatures elect the Bundesrat members- well, not exactly.

The states are represented in the Bundesrat by state delegations, drawn from the executive of the state. The delegations are led by the Mayor (in the case of city-states: Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg) or the Prime Minister (for the other states), but other members of that states' executive can be present.

Whoever leads the delegation casts the vote. But it isn't one state, one vote. Instead, they are weighted, so the smallest states have 3 votes and the largest 6 votes. And however the delegation leader votes, all the votes for that state go that way, e.g. Bavaria has 6 votes, but cannot split those votes- it's 6 for, 6 against or 6 abstentions.

And the Council of Ministers is based on that. There are no permanent members, it depends on what the topic is.

Traditionally, the Council required unamity. However, a European Council meeting in Luxembourg in December 1985 decided to amend this, and QMV was introduced in a revision of the Treaty of Rome, known as the Single European Act, which was signed in both Luxembourg and The Hague in February 1986.

The basis of QMV is that each nation has a set number of votes in the Council- each nation will cast all its votes the same way- and for a piece of European legislation to pass it has to achieve a qualified majority, around 70 to 75% of the total votes. The smaller nations are slightly over-represented on the Council and the larger ones under-represented (which is similar to the Bundesrat).

Notice I said "legislation". The Council is a legislative body. It is interesting that, given the separation of legislature and executive at the centre of the European Union, when the Council meets, it is people who are legislators at that moment solely because they are members of their nations' executive.

Currently on the Council there are 345 votes:

• France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom- 29 votes each
• Poland, Spain- 27 votes each
• Romania- 14 votes
• Netherlands- 13 votes
• Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal- 12 votes each
• Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden- 10 votes each
• Denmark, Finland, Irish Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia- 7 votes each
• Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia- 4 votes each
• Malta- 3 votes

Under QMV, for something to be passed, it needs 255 votes. Put it another way, 91 votes are enough to block.

Back in 2004, when the Council was trying to decide on the Commission President, Blair decided to veto Guy Verhofstadt, then the Belgian Prime Minister (who is now in the European Parliament, as leader of the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe MEPs). Now, that is a veto that could come back to bite Blair hard.

For the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) do not want this high-profile President. Neither does Poland. So, it is likely that all 4 would veto Blair, as he would not be the style of President they want to see.

How do their votes stack up?

• Poland 27
• Netherlands 14
• Belgium 12
• Luxembourg 4

That's 57, so another 34 would be needed to block Blair.

Conjunctions Part 1- Venus & Jupiter

One thing about the switch from Central European Time to Universal Time was obvious this morning. I leave for church about 7 normally (I like to go to the 9am traditional-style service, there are no buses that time, and it's just under 8km).

This morning, the Sun was just coming up. Last Sunday it was twilight, and I could see Venus. However, it was too bright to see Saturn, which was close to Venus in the sky.

Are there any other close approaches coming up? Looking at the four obvious planets- Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn:

Venus-Jupiter

The two brightest planets- a pedant would point out that Mars can, at times, be brighter than Jupiter, but that is only about every 15 years or so.

Mid-February 2010: A close approach, low in the west/south-west in the evening twilight, down in Aquarius. Quite a challenge- Jupiter is moving in towards the Sun, and Venus is moving away from the Sun.

Late-April to early-June 2011: The fun starts in late April, low in the east in the morning twilight, in Pisces. Venus will be slightly past its best, moving back in towards the Sun, but Jupiter is moving out from the Sun. At the early stage, they will be joined by Mercury and Mars, both moving out from the Sun- although this part will be difficult from northern temperate latitudes (from the southern hemisphere, this is Mercury at its best in the morning sky for 2011). The foursome remain reasonably close through May as they move into Aries, but by late May Jupiter is moving away from the others. Early June sees Venus, Mars and Mercury drifting apart.

Late-February to early-April 2012: An evening show, with Venus pulling away from the Sun, while Jupiter is moving in towards the Sun. Jupiter is in Aries at the time, while Venus will move from Pisces, through Aries and into Taurus. When at their closest, in mid-March, Venus is about as far from the Sun in the sky as it can be. From southern England, at this time, the pair will be setting about 1/2 past 9- the bright red object on the other side of the sky will be Mars, in Leo, at its brightest since February 2010, and if you're lucky, you will see Saturn, rising in Virgo, but more of that later.....

Mid-May to early-June 2013: Another evening event, but less prominent than the previous year's. The action takes place in Taurus, with Venus moving away from the Sun, and Jupiter moving towards the Sun. For much of this time, they are joined by Mercury, in its best evening appearance from northern temperate latitudes for 2013.

August 2014: Low in the dawn sky in Cancer. Jupiter is moving away from the Sun, with Venus moving in towards the Sun.

Mid-June 2015 to early-August 2015: This is probably more impressive than 2012, starting in Cancer and then moving in to Leo. Venus is- as in 2012- about as far from the Sun in the evening sky as it can be, and Jupiter is moving in towards the Sun. Then the two planets stay near each other as they move towards the Sun, disappear into the evening twilight in early August....

Late-August to mid-November 2015: While Jupiter takes its time to reappear in the morning twilight, Venus has got its skates on in this regard. But, Venus isn't lonely in the morning sky, as it is with Mars, in Cancer. As September rolls on, these two move into Leo and join Jupiter. By mid-November, the threesome are moving apart, with Jupiter remaining in Leo and Venus and Mars carrying on into Virgo. Throughout much of October, a bit lower down, will be Mercury at its best morning appearance for northern temperate latitudes in 2015.

Mid-August to early-September 2016: Another evening one, low down in Leo. Venus is moving away from the Sun, Jupiter towards the Sun.

Early-September to early-December 2017: Low in the morning twilight, in Leo, Venus is moving in towards the Sun and encounters Mars, moving out from the Sun. These remain close together for a few weeks, and in mid-November, Jupiter is reappearing in the morning sky and is approaching Venus (both of these now in Virgo), while at the same time, Mars is moving further away- but it can't avoid Jupiter forever...

Early-January to late-February 2019: In the morning sky, Venus is about as far from the Sun as it can be, and is rapidly moving through Libra, Scorpius and Ophiuchus, where it encounters Jupiter, moving out from the Sun. And in late January, Venus' motion carries it on to Sagittarius, where it encounters Saturn, moving out from the Sun.

Early-November to mid-December 2019: Low in the evening sky, Venus is moving in towards the Sun, moving through Libra, Scorpius and Ophiuchus, encountering Jupiter. It then moves on to Sagittarius, encountering Saturn.

I'll deal with other planetary conjunctions in a later post.

Knock Four Times

This year has seen the Doctor Who specials- last Christmas was The Next Doctor and Easter had Planet of the Dead. Then there will be the two part Christmas special- the second part is called The End of Time, but the first part hasn't had its name announced (implying that the episode name gives a vital clue. But, can't they call it Bad Wilf?).

But before Christmas there has to be The Waters of Mars. Now, one fellow fan said that he had heard that it would be the Hallowe'en special, which made sort-of-sense, given that it is supposed to be very frightening, and there is no other major event left before Christmas- apart from Guy Fawkes Night.

But, looking at the schedule for Saturday, no space there for it.

One thing that might get answered is Carmen's prophecy at the end of Planet of the Dead- that "he" is returning from the darkness and will knock four times.

Last year, there was an episode called Midnight. Quite a quirky episode, but looking back one thing springs to mind. I am sure that, before the creature attacks the shuttle-bus and takes over Sky Silvestry, it knocks on the outer hull four times in quick succession. Is it that which makes the Doctor scared of what is in Sky? Note that Sky wants the Doctor thrown out into the dark.

But the surface of Midnight isn't really dark. The "X-tonic" radiation from it is so bright that you have to be heavily shielded.

In addition, whatever the creature was, it would have survived the Hostess grabbing Sky and leaving the shuttle-bus with her. It had existed out in the environment before finding the shuttle-bus and so, presumably, would be able to exist out there afterwards.

I am starting to think that the Midnight-creature was either the Master or something to do with him.

------

[Added 27 October]

I realised that the drumbeat in Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords is a rapid four beats, and this was associated with the Master, who has been continually hearing it from when he was 8 years old and looked into the "untempered schism". This was something which seemed so significant yet was left unresolved.

The Master's return also ensures that Martha Jones' tenure as a companion meant something. In the last season, I was left with the impression that she had been downgraded to being just a stand-in companion between Rose Tyler's departure and Donna Noble's return. The thing about the last season was that there were all these clues connected to Donna ("there is something on your back"; "the most important woman in all of creation") and the season was building towards Rose's return from the parallel universe.

Yes, Martha did have a contribution, but this was minor. In The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky she spends most of the adventure unconscious while Freema Agyeman plays a clone version of her; in The Doctor's Daughter she is away from the centre of action and in The Stolen Earth/Journey's End she isn't reunited with the Doctor till near the end- on the other hand, you could say that in the last three of those episodes she had her own adventure which dovetailed at the end with the Doctor and Donna's adventure and was the opposite of the stereotypical run-down-corridors-saying-"What do we do now, Doctor?"-before-tripping-over-and-spraining-ankle sort of companion.

But in terms of the end of last season, the only adventure she had in the previous season which impacted on the end was Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks where she meets Dalek Caan- and it is obvious at the end of that adventure that when Caan escapes from New York he'll try and find Davros. Oh, and in her debut, Smith & Jones, we meet the Judoon. But, in general, her season was dominated by the "Mr Saxon" arc ("Harold Saxon" being the Master). It was almost as if it didn't matter much, that Donna could have decided to travel with the Doctor at the end of The Runaway Bride, the Doctor decides not to investigate at Royal Hope Hospital and things wouldn't have been much different.

Bringing the Master back says that Martha's time in the TARDIS does matter, with the Saxon arc not yet completed...

A Very Important Non-Announcement

One thing this week that is interesting is what Harriet Harman, the Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women, said about the House of Commons' recesses.

Or rather what she didn't say.

Obviously, Harman couldn't announce when the summer one would be, as- unless something unusual happens- there has to be a general election by Thursday 3 June next year.

She announced the Christmas recess, but not the dates for the Easter one.

Across England- outside of London- there are local elections on Thursday 6 May. If the general election is on that day as well, Parliament has to be dissolved on Monday 12 April- as this is 8 days after Easter, it would be in the Easter recess.

In that case, it is logical that Harman would not want to decide when to call the Easter recess until she can be sure that the Government's basic business will get through. In the fortnight or so before dissolution, it is normal for the Government and Opposition to meet to make deals on legislation to ensure that it does get through- in some form- by dissolution, which will involve the Government having to water down whatever legislation that it still has going through.

Rome If You Want To

Among all the church politics, this week saw Joseph Ratzinger, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome, lob a hand-grenade into the Church of England.

Sometimes, I divide Anglicans into "core" and "shell". This is not a usual distinction, but what I mean by it is that you have the ones who concentrate on the core of the faith, wishing to emphasise the sound evangelical doctrinal foundations. And then you have those whose emphasis is on the frilly little extras, e.g. who harp on about the beauty of the language in the Book of Common Prayer, church architecture, albs and stoles being worn properly. I think "properly" is the key word- we're Anglicans, we do things properly unlike the Methodists or the Baptists or the Pentecostals etc. As long as the shell is right, then what's in the core doesn't matter do much. Say what you like- as long as it's in seventeenth century English.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. I do like the old BCP, but the beauty of that and the King James Version is the message they say, rather than the language they use.

What Ratzinger has done is to open the possibility that Anglicans can defect to Rome and remain sort-of-Anglicans. Well, they can remain "shell" Anglicans but be "core" Roman Catholics. If doctrine doesn't matter to you, but the little extras are ultra-important then that is the step you will take.

It seems that Anglo-Catholics often want to have their cake and eat it. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Oxford Movement introduced Roman Catholic worship and teaching to a Church of England that was quite low church, but- apart from John Newman- none of the leading "Tractarians" as they were called, were willing to take that logical step of going to Rome. They wanted to be Anglicans with a Roman Catholic style. And, something similar looks like happening again- the Anglo-Catholic movement moving over to Rome, but not willing to go all the way. Going from Romanised Anglicans to Anglicanised Roman Catholics.

One thing that is annoying is the media coverage with the common idea that the Church of England has always been a Catholic-Protestant compromise church. Now, it is true that all Henry VIII wanted to do was to break from the authority and leadership of Rome, but it was Edward VI who introduced genuine Reformation. The Elizabethan compromise was not that Roman Catholics and Protestants co-existed in one Church of England, but that Protestant Reformed theology, doctrine and worship existed in a church which had a Roman structure, i.e. bishops, priests, deacons, archdeacons etc. The Church of England- unlike the Church of Scotland- did not reform its structures.

Yes, It Hurt. No, It Didn't Work.

There was a time in the 1990s recession, as Britain was coming out of it, when the Conservatives toyed with the slogan "Yes, it hurt. Yes, it worked."

The latest news is that the current recession has not ended- we have not followed France and Germany out of it and back into growth. Hmm, odd that only a few weeks ago, various Labour ministers were dragged out to praise Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, for taking the tough choices to bring us back to recovery.

Well, Brown has failed. Simple as that. But he is still promising that it'll get better on his watch.

The New Shadow Cabinet

This might seem premature, but it seems likely that at some point next year there will be a new elected Shadow Cabinet.

A Conservative Leader of the Opposition has complete freedom to appoint who they want to their Shadow Cabinet- but a Labour one is constrained, as Labour MPs elect the Shadow Cabinet.

When Labour entered Opposition in May 1979, MPs could vote for up to 12 candidates, and the 12 with the most votes became the Shadow Cabinet. In addition, MPs elected the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (since October 1981 for the deputy leadership, and October 1983 for the leadership, these have been elected on an "electoral college" system, comprising MPs, union members and party members) and the Opposition Chief Whip, with Labour members of the House of Lords electing the Shadow Leader of the Lords.

Then the Leader would appoint the "shadow portfolios". There was no need for those being given shadow portfolios to actually be in the Shadow Cabinet, e.g. during the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a lengthy spell when Martin O'Neill was Shadow Defence Secretary and Kevin McNamara was Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, but neither of them had been elected to the Shadow Cabinet.

There is also no need for all the members of the Shadow Cabinet to be given shadow portfolios, e.g. between November 1980 and his leaving Labour to found the Social Democrats in March 1981, Bill Rodgers was in the Shadow Cabinet, but not shadowing any department.

Also, the post a member of the Shadow Cabinet is shadowing need not be a Cabinet post (e.g. Tom Clarke's time as Shadow Minister for the Disabled, as well as successive Shadow Ministers for Overseas Development), or might not even exist (e.g. Joan Lestor's tenure as Shadow Minister for Children when there was no Minister for Children).

November 1981 saw a change, when MPs elected 15 members of the Shadow Cabinet, and there was a further enlargement in November 1989, when this increased to 18, with the provision that the 3 women with the most votes had to be in the Shadow Cabinet, even if they were not in the top 18. Until then, the Shadow Cabinet had had at most one woman in it (Gwyneth Dunwoody from November 1981 to October 1985 and Jo Richardson from June 1987- the record was from June 1970 to November 1972 when both Barbara Castle and Shirley Williams were in the Shadow Cabinet). This rule change saw Richardson joined by Lestor, Ann Clwyd and Margaret Beckett.

The rules changed in October 1993, when MPs still had to vote for 18 candidates- but at least 4 of them had to be women. However, there was no rule any more about the top 3 women having to enter the Shadow Cabinet, and this backfired as the number of female Shadow Cabinet members fell from 4 (Clwyd, Harriet Harman, Mo Mowlam and Ann Taylor) to 3 (Lestor, Mowlam and Taylor)- although at this time Beckett was in the Shadow Cabinet as Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

There was also a slight change in November 1995 when the number of elected members increased to 19, but the Opposition Chief Whip was no longer elected directly, but appointed by the Leader from among the 19 elected.

So, what happens if Labour loses office? Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, becomes Leader of the Opposition, and Harman- the Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the Commons and Minister for Women- becomes Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Then a Shadow Cabinet needs to be elected.

One thing to note is that the Shadow Cabinet is normally elected just after the start of a parliamentary session- but there can be exceptions, e.g. in 1992 it was postponed from April or May until July, so that it could be held after the leadership and deputy leadership election, and in 1996 it was brought forward from November to July. A leadership election can take a few weeks, so if Brown did throw in the towel straight after the election, there could be the situation of a Shadow Cabinet elected before the leadership election, and then one Shadow Cabinet member becoming Leader and a vacancy occuring in the Shadow Cabinet. In addition, Harman could be in an awkward situation if she ran for leader without the insurance policy of not resigning as deputy leader and end up in the situation Beckett was in in July 1994- not elected leader, failed to be re-elected deputy leader and not in the Shadow Cabinet as one had already been elected.

What about Peter Mandelson, the Lord President of the Council and First Secretary of State, and Andrew Adonis, the Transport Secretary? As members of the House of Lords they cannot be elected to the Shadow Cabinet by MPs. The route would be to be elected by Labour peers as Shadow Leader of the Lords- but where would that leave Janet Royall, currently the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the Lords? Would Labour try to get round this by allowing MPs to elect peers to the Shadow Cabinet?

Removing Brown, Harman, Mandelson, Adonis and Royall gives 18 members of the Cabinet (note that there are others who are outside the Cabinet but attend meetings). Add in Nick Brown, the Chief Whip, and you have 19.

19 people who, as long as they remain MPs, are eligible to be elected to the 19 vacancies on the Shadow Cabinet. Simple, or is it?

Remember the vote-for-4-women rule? Among that 19 are only 2 women- there's Tessa Jowell, the Paymaster-General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, and Yvette Cooper, the Work & Pensions Secretary. That doesn't mean that 2 other women will be in the Shadow Cabinet, displacing 2 of the men, but for an MP's vote to be valid, it has to include at least 4 women (as long as these are standing).

So, if up to and including 4 women stand for the Shadow Cabinet, then MPs have to vote for all of them (or their vote is invalid), and so the women in question would automatically get the maximum number of votes and be in the Shadow Cabinet.

There are a handful of long-serving women ministers whose careers have stagnated just outside the Cabinet- Margaret Hodge, Minister for Tourism; Joan Ruddock, Minister for Energy; and Dawn Primarolo, Minister for Children.

At times, Brown is portrayed as the sort of Prime Minister who doesn't want to promote women. There is the irony that Labour rules will force him to be the sort of Leader of the Opposition who has to promote women.

Who Will Be The President?

It now looks as if Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, will sign the Treaty of Lisbon, and so the European Council will choose the President of the European Council and the Vice-President of the European Commission with responsibility for the Common Foreign & Security Policy.

One thing which needs to be emphasised is that, yes, at times in the European Parliament there will be a clear left-right split, but there seems to be a preference in the European Union for consensus. The membership of the Council of Ministers depends on the policy area under discussion and the composition of the Governments- so, it is unlikely to be totally composed of politicians from the centre-right or politicians from the centre-left. Given that many policy decisions have to be made by Qualified Majority Voting (and there are still plenty which require unaminity), it means that almost any European policy has to have the support of most of the centre-left and most of the centre-right, with neither side getting totally its own way.

When it comes to the European Commission, you would expect most of the Commissioners to come from either the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats or the European People's Party, with a few from the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe and maybe one or two from a smaller grouping such as the Greens/European Free Alliance, the United European Left/Nordic Green Left, the European Conservatives & Reformists, or the Europe of Freedom & Democracy.

So, by extension, any "President of Europe" will need to be someone who is consensual, and can demonstrate this by their track record of running a Government.

You might look to Germany or Austria, both of which have EPP/PASD "grand coalitions". However, this was forced on Germany due to the unusual result of the September 2005 election, which forced the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats to form a coalition. Of course, the September 2009 election will enable the Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to ditch the Social Democrats and form a coalition with the Free Democrats (from the ALDE) which I think is due to take office next week.

Austria is in a slightly similar situation, due to the influence of the late Jorg Haider. His Freedom Party gained enough support at the October 2006 election to ensure that the parliametary arithmetic forced the People's Party and the Social Democrats to form a coalition- and in the December 2008 election, the Freedom Party and Haider's new party (Alliance for the Future of Austria) did well enough to force the People's Party and Social Democrats to re-form their coalition.

So, Austria and Germany have had grand coalitions, but these were more due to election results rather than any enthusiasm for consensus politics.

How about elsewhere in the EU? The two politicians who I think best fit the bill for President are Jan-Peter Balkenende and Jean-Claude Juncker.

Balkenende has been Prime Minister of the Netherlands since July 2002, and is from the Christian Democrats, part of the EPP. Since February 2007 his party have been in coalition with Labour (from the PASD) and Christian Union (from the ECR). So, if you're looking for someone who has willingly led a centre-right/centre-left coalition, then he meets that requirement.

In addition, Balkenende has led a variety of coalitions. When he first became Prime Minister, it was in coalition with the People's Party for Freedom & Democracy (part of the ALDE) and the Pim Fortuyn List (now defunct). The latter of these withdrew in October 2002, and in May 2003, Democrats 66 (part of ALDE) joined the Government, but left it in June 2006.

Juncker has been Prime Minister of Luxembourg since January 1995 and is from the Christian Social People's Party (part of EPP). He has been in coalition with the Socialist Workers' Party (part of PASD) from July 2004.

Like Balkenende, Juncker has experience of leading different coalitions. He led a coalition with the Democratic Party (part of ALDE) between August 1999 and July 2004.

Either Balkenende or Juncker would provide the sort of consensual President which would fit in with the European political climate.

With the Presidency out of the way, what about the "Vice-President of Europe"/"Foreign Minister of Europe"? With a President from the EPP, balance would mean that the Vice-President would come from the PASD.

But using the arguments above for a consensual President, wouldn't the ideal Foreign Minister be someone who has served in a left-right coalition formed by choice (rather than by the parliamentary arithmetic). And one name springs to mind- Bernard Kouchner, France's Foreign & European Affairs Minister.

Although the French Government is dominated by the Union for a Popular Movement (part of the EPP)- which actually has an overall majority in the National Assembly and therefore doesn't need any coalition partners- Kouchner was an interesting Cabinet choice as his background is in the Socialist Party. He is probably best known internationally as founder of Medicins sans Frontieres.

Kouchner would perfectly balance Balkenende or Juncker. President from the EPP, Foreign Minister from the PASD. President from a small country, Foreign Minister from a large country. Both having demonstrated their commitment to consensual right-left politics.

It's That Time Again

This weekend is, as usual for this time of year, the time that the usual people feel the need to say how much better things would be if we used Eastern European Time (2 hours ahead of Universal Time) from late March to late October and Central European Time (1 hour ahead of UT) the rest of the year, instead of CET from March to October and UT the rest of the year.

It is always interesting to see what number the pro-CET/EET lobby will pluck out of thin air as the number of lives which would be saved if we switched from the UT/CET system to a CET/EET system.

The CET/EET system is a bit like compulsory ID cards, i.e. a solution in search of a problem.

So, this year, as usual, there are the suggestions of "why can't Scotland stay on UT/CET and England go on CET/EET?"

What I love is the argument that this would bring England in line with the rest of the European Union. Will it?

Outside the United Kingdom, it is only Portugal and the Irish Republic which use the UT/CET system. However, in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, in winter they use EET, and in summer are 3 hours ahead of UT.

So, with only two-thirds of the EU member nations using the CET/EET system, it is not the common European time which its supporters make it out to be. And when enlargement happens? Iceland will bring in another UT/CET country.

Looking longer term, Turkey and the Ukraine use EET in winter. Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia are 4 hours ahead of UT in the winter. Curiously, there are no potential member nations that are 3 hours ahead of UT in winter.

There is also the curious logic that it is essential for England to be on the same time zone as most of the rest of the EU- in the interests of convenience- but it doesn't matter if there is the same time zone across all of the United Kingdom.

The EU can handle 3 time zones. Australia has 3. Canada has 6 (when it's 9am in British Columbia, it's 1.30pm in Newfoundland).