³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

So a French parliamentary commission has The burka and niqab are "unacceptable", the report goes on, "and we condemn this excess".

However, the report is cautious in what it recommends. It foresees a ban on the burka in all schools, public transport and government offices. Women who wear the full veil could be denied services such as work visas or even French citizenship.

But the commission has steered away from a general ban including wearing it on the street. They were uncertain about the legality of such a ban.

There will now be intensive debate about this and a law may follow, but MPs are divided over what to do. Some favour tough legislation while others are not persuaded.

I also want to pick up on some of your comments about the burka and France. It is clearly a subject of immense interest. My intention is to highlight major European themes and "identity" is one of them. Some of the arguments heard in France have either already taken place in other European countries or are on the agenda.

My interview with Chrystelle Khedrouche, who wears the niqab, raised some interesting points.

Mrs Gendy wrote: "I wonder how many of the women who wear the niqab are French converts married to men from Muslim-dominated countries".

My understanding is that in France among the relatively few burka or niqab wearers a significant number are converts. The vast majority are under 40. Chrystelle says her decision to wear the niqab was hers alone and dictated by her faith.

Muslim writes: "Muslim women are commanded to cover their entire bodies in the presence of Afanib (men lawful for the women to marry)". There is wide dispute over this. Some imams in France back a ban. Hassen Chalgloumi, a Tunisian-born imam, says "full-face veils have no place in Islam" and goes on to describe the burka as "a prison for women". The French Council for Muslim Worship has supported the ban in instances where establishing identity is necessary.

Many contributors felt that the full-face veil should be banned in airports, law courts, schools and some public buildings. In the Netherlands it is banned in and around schools. However a case in Belgium reveals just how difficult it is to enforce a ban. A woman who was fined $190 simply refused to pay.

Another contributor pointed out how few Muslim women wore headscarves as recently as 10 years ago. One Muslim woman told me in Paris that the headscarf had become a way of asserting identity. She recognised that that became a problem if the identity was seen as separate from mainstream European society.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Chrystelle Khedrouche is 36 and lives in a suburb just outside Paris. She has been wearing a burka in public for around 12 years. She is French-born, has five children, and is married to an Algerian. She is a convert to Islam.

These are her views about the proposed ban on wearing the burka and niqab in public places:

"I'm really very sad about this, but I'm not so surprised because it is part of the French mentality, but it makes me sad and it's hard that this is the stage we have got to. It's been several years that we live like this and we have been perfectly fine, but then I'm not so surprised because the French like the idea of everyone being of the same mould and that mould must be ideal. Everything that is not part of their ideal model doesn't suit them."

Polls suggest that a sizeable majority of French people support a ban.

"This is a political strategy. It is always easier to knock the Muslims because all French people are in agreement about it."

Isn't it through the face that human beings relate to each other? It is the most basic way of communicating?

"Do you think we do not have contact with people? No, I don't agree with that at all. Throughout this debate we have heard lots of excuses. I disagree. I did my studies in communication. I know that if I smile on the telephone a smile is heard. For me, we can have human contact and a piece of cloth will not stop this contact. I don't agree that human contact is established through the face. I still have human contact, it doesn't change anything."

Many Muslims say that nothing in Islam requires women to wear the full-face veil.

"It saddens me a lot because our community is not united enough. For me there is no difference between myself and other Muslim women who show their veil, their hair or show their full head; there is no difference between us. But to say that it is not part of our religion I find very difficult, because we know that the wives of the prophet were dressed like this, they were fully covered.

"When God ordered that women be veiled we know that they were already veiled. Look at the mother of Jesus, Mary, she wore a veil and I have never seen an image of her where she is not veiled. So we know that women were veiled at that time and if God ordered that women be veiled it was to add something more to what there was already."

What would you do if the ban becomes part of French law?

"Am I ready to break the law? It's been 12 years that I have been like this. Yes, I am ready. In fact I can't accept the fact that the French fight for the freedom of women. I believe a woman should be able to dress as she likes, so I do not understand why they want to stop me from dressing as I want. I have made a choice to dress like this and I have made the choice not to be unveiled, so to force me to unveil - that's not freedom."

What happens if you are fined for breaking the law?

"If we are stopped we do not have any intention of paying fines - that is sure. I personally will not pay a fine and I think there are lots of women who will not pay. I find it terrible to stop someone for the way they dress and it is against European laws. First they say they will introduce a law, now it is a decree, a resolution...

"They know that it will go against the European constitution. I don't know where this will lead, but they cannot arrest us in front of our children, we have done nothing wrong."

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For several months a parliamentary commission in France has been investigating whether the burka or the niqab (the full veil) should be banned. They are due to report next Tuesday, 26 January. It is now clear that they will say that the burka "should be prohibited on the territory of the Republic".

In an interview with today's Le Figaro, the president of the commission, Andre Gerin, said that "the ban on the burka will be absolute" in public places.

Now this will have the force of an opinion, but it will be the first step towards putting a law in place. A great many deputies in the parliament clearly want this to be followed by a law. Nothing will happen quickly and certainly not before the French regional elections in March. There will also be an intense debate as to what the legislation should include and how to avoid it clashing with human rights laws.

I spoke with Jean-Francois Cope, the head of the parliamentary group for the UMP (the governing party) and he said that this was mostly about women's rights. "We think in our country", he told me, "that the face is a way of recognising and respecting each other". The veil, he went on, isn't the point. It is the covering of the face that we object to.

Now Mr Cope has already talked of fining those who break the law. Others like Xavier Bertrand have gone further in suggesting niqab wearers should not acquire French nationality. In his view the full veil is "simply a prison for women who wear it".

The deputies, who support the ban, say that many Muslims confirm that nothing in Islam requires women to wear the full veil. Only about 1900 women in France wear it.

It is difficult to isolate where this push for banning the burka comes from. Mr Cope said it had the support of 74% of French people. What people say is that as Muslims have become more visible across Europe, there is a concern that they are pushing a separate identity that would lead to parallel, not integrated, communities.

One academic I spoke to said that liberals had not expected, in backing multiculturalism, that newcomers would arrive and live apart from the society they had joined. President Sarkozy has spoken of "this feeling of sharing less and less a common culture, a common imagination and a common morality". In his view, becoming French means "adhering to a form of civilisation, values and behaviour".

Tomorrow I will write on the view from behind the niqab and how women who wear it may react to legislation if it comes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Inauguration day last year broke cold. Way before dawn there were thousands on the streets, huddled in blankets like homeless people.

The cold was biting, but they would not be deterred - they wanted a vantage point on history. Many were African Americans who could scarcely believe that the day had come when a black man was occupying the White House. I found others, too, from across the globe, drawn there by the belief that America could be different, that under Barack Obama it would live up to its high ideals.

It was inevitable that disappointment would follow. Such is the reality of power. The Europeans had fallen for Obama. It was partly because he was not George Bush. It was also because they wanted America to be a place that fitted their dreams.

Earlier, in 2008, I had stood in the Tiergarten in Berlin and watched tens of thousands of Germans listen to a man who was still only a candidate. For Obama it was a rather leaden speech, too draped in history to inspire the crowd. But later that night there were still people waiting outside his hotel for a glimpse of a man they wanted to be Kennedy. To many Europeans Obama was full of possibility.

The French too had swooned. They loved Obama's style; his youth, his elegance, his mixed background. I remember watchingwhen Obama first visited the Elysee Palace. Sarkozy was left standing on the steps for a good seven or eight minutes while the Obama motorcade threaded its way towards them. The president of France would have done it for few other leaders.

France and Germany. In the poisonous build-up towards the war in Iraq, they had become the "weasels". I recall opening a paper in New York and seeing that the faces of the French and German ministers at the UN had been replaced with those of weasels. Donald Rumsfeld famously sneered at "old Europe".

So a year ago a new dawn broke. Almost immediately Europe nominated Obama for a peace prize. It was a gift for good intentions.

Yet shortly after that Europe experienced Obama's detached cool. There was no rush to get European leaders to the White House. They were vying with each other for an invite, but Obama's world view was not Europe-centred.

In April 2009 the American president came to Prague, at the heart of Europe. It was a message of co-operation. "We affirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart." Co-operation had to be shared with other nations and institutions. Europeans had hankered after this.

Then Obama offered the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons. He spoke of America's commitment "to seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons".

And then reality set in. The nuclear-free world remains but a dream. Afghanistan was going badly. President Obama faced a painful choice: to commit more troops or to scale back. While he agonised, Europe waited. When the American administration finally backed a surge of troops, Europe hesitated. Sure, countries like Italy stepped up. Others made a gesture because they did not want to alienate Obama, but the French and Germans have still to decide what they will do. To some Europeans the Obama world came to resemble much of what went before.

And then there was Copenhagen. Europeans believed they had set the agenda, they had been out in front over climate change. However, in the chaos of the conference they saw Obama do a deal with the Chinese and other emerging "giants". Europe was marginalised and felt excluded.

And the struggle against extremism did not disappear with the demise of a Republican president. President Obama's rhetoric was different, but fighting terrorism was as challenging as ever. Guantanamo Bay remained open. There was no sign that Islamists were in retreat.

Some Europeans had hoped for a breakthrough in the Middle East. It has not happened. The president criticised the Israelis, but they continued building in East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.

The president offered to speak to Iran. The Europeans liked that, but it has not delivered results.

So the love affair has cooled, but it is not over. Europeans like Obama's belief in consultation, in working with allies. His multilateral approach is popular. It remains true that most European leaders still want to be photographed with the president, but underlying everything is a basic reality: residents of the White House have to protect American interests first - and that did not change a year ago.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Herman Van Rompuy was in London today on another lap of his tour of European capitals. He's a president. He gets a small motorcade, but he is self-effacing to the point where you could doubt he wanted to be there.

In Downing Street Gordon Brown positively bristled with authority beside him. It was the kind of occasion that the prime minister likes. The launch of an international plan, high on ambition, vague on delivery. While Gordon Brown sketched out his vision for jobs and growth in the EU, Van Rompuy looked down at his papers, his face pale. Only twice did he look across at Gordon Brown.

When it came to the new president's turn, he read from a prepared speech. His big idea, so far, is to call for an informal European economic summit on 11 February. Now when he first announced this meeting some saw it as a way of establishing himself on the European circuit. There may be an element of that, but Van Rompuy has been smart to identify that Europe's economic crisis is not going away and he has made this his priority. There are 23 million Europeans without work. Growth this year is projected to be 0.7%. He said today that growth needed to be at least 2% "in order to continue with our way of life". It is a candid acknowledgement that unless Europe changes, its standard of living will decline.

The remedy, however, is a little harder to identify. Van Rompuy wants Europe's leaders to come up with ambitious ideas to get Europe moving again. The British have weighed in with suggestions of how to create new jobs, how to unleash the creativity of small and medium- sized enterprises, how to back the innovative industries of the future. We have been there before with , which most member states paid lip service to and then ignored. We shall see whether Europe's leaders this time can adopt measures that will make a difference. Some will also see the risk that the crisis will be used as an excuse to push for greater integration.

One item on Van Rompuy's agenda is whether the EU should hold an annual economic summit. It is not an entirely new idea, but it may become a fixture in the years ahead.

The president was later asked whether weren't there too many summits and not enough action. He responded with a weak smile. He questioned the use of the word "summit". A meeting of the European Council, in his view, was not a summit. It was an informal event where leaders can meet each other five or six times a year. It was a curious distinction, suggesting he was wary of being seen as chair of summits and little else.

The conversation turned to Haiti. Van Rompuy tossed out the idea of . It was hard to tell what status this thought had. No other details were forthcoming - who would run it, who would finance it, where it would be based.

One thing is for sure: he's not a people politician. You could not imagine him on the campaign trail or delving into a crowd to meet the people who may hire him. He's a back-room worker who likes to grind out consensus away from the cameras. In Europe that can be a strength and a weakness. The union needs leaders who can connect with the voters, but it needs mediators who can grind out compromise.

These are early days for Van Rompuy, but some time down the road the questions will be asked: "What is the new president for?" "What difference has he made?" "Is the EU more effective?"

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

At every disaster you find emergency teams from Europe. In the Pakistani earthquake I flew in a German helicopter. The Swiss arrived early. I found the same covering the tsunami in Asia. The Italian teams, as always, proved they have some of the best rescue workers in the world.

So again this time . There are Welsh firefighters rescuing a two-year old girl. Spanish and French teams have been tearing at the rubble at the Hotel Montana. In a disaster the secret to early success is small mobile teams that arrive quickly and save lives. Initially it is difficult co-ordinating these teams. National search and rescue squads have to deploy at once. They go into neighbourhoods and, like with the Israeli team yesterday, they pull survivors from the rubble where they find them.

It is always chaotic. At every disaster I have reported on the same complaints are heard. Chaos is at the heart of disaster. In Phuket in Thailand they said that bodies were not disposed of quickly enough. In Kashmir I flew into villages that had not received any help ten days after the earthquake had struck. In Turkey it was said there were too many rescue teams and I saw some trying to find a building where there were not dog teams working already. Even in the United States, after Hurricane Katrina, we found ourselves rescuing families from the water.

Of course the aim is to establish co-ordination. It is much harder in Haiti because there is not a functioning government. Delivery of aid is difficult without security. That lies at the heart of the tension between France and the United States. The Americans control the airport and they are setting up a military operation in Haiti so some of their military planes have landed first. That has infuriated the French. A plane carrying an inflatable hospital from France was diverted. The French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, complained the airport had become a "US annexe".

Such tensions, in my experience, are inevitable. The lesson of every disaster I have covered is that co-ordination is best done on the ground. It is not a role for ministers or bureaucrats hundreds or thousands of miles away. It doesn't work like that.

Now the EU's response is complicated by the fact that it is learning to live with new structures. It has . She has said that "rebuilding Haiti is now a priority for the EU" There was also, in her public statements, the suggestion that she was "co-ordinating" the different activities of the European Union with the member states. Now there clearly is a role for the EU in planning for the long-term development of Haiti and that will be discussed at a meeting of development ministers today.

But there is a question as to what role the EU should play in coordinating emergency search and rescue and relief operations. Certainly the EU, as an institution, is not essential for rescue work to be effective. Nations have acted decisively and quickly without referring to international institutions. Iceland despatched 35 members of its search and rescue team. Canada has its Sea King helicopters in action. Brazilian rescue workers are in place. The Chinese had people in Port-au-Prince by 0200 on 14 January.

I suspect a dilemma here for the EU. There is a current obsession to be seen as a "player" on the world stage. This need, in part, lay behind the Lisbon Treaty. It is often easy for that desire to translate into wanting to act as if the EU were a state. It isn't. It has no military capacity. Even if the EU's military was under one command it would be hard to match the US with its aircraft-carrier, hospital ship, logistical power and its ability to deploy thousands of troops while it is fighting two campaigns overseas. The fact that Europe cannot do that does not make it somehow weak or ineffective, as some have suggested.

The question is more where the EU should best put its energy. The EU may be most effective at coordinating medium and long-term development. Today it is set to announce 100m euros (£88m) in reconstruction aid.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

ROME The Italian prime minister returned to work this week. He arrived in Rome full of smiles, his face miraculously restored after he was attacked in Milan by a man who threw a replica of a cathedral at him. He touched his left cheek and told reporters, with obvious pride, that there was hardly any scar visible.

His friends tell me he is in excellent spirits. He quipped that "replicas are so cheap these days they throw them at you". His popularity seems to have been restored, although more polls are due. Those close to him claim his ratings are better than the American president's.

Plenty of Italians would shake their heads at that. They say that the prime minister has shamed their country, that he mocks the courts, that he has undermined democracy with his control of large sections of the media.

Then there is the view from abroad. He is Europe's best-known politician; known for gaffes, scandals, inappropriate remarks, alleged nights with escort girls, accusations of Mafia connections. And even this week he faces another trial while he seeks immunity from prosecution. Without doubt, in many countries, this cocktail of problems would have swept him from power.

I have spent the past two days talking to those who write about him and those who are close to him. I always ask, in these early days of 2010, whether he'll survive. Almost no one thinks he'll be forced from power.

So, the enigma of Berlusconi.

One key to his survival is his personal narrative. "He knows very well the guts of the country," said Massimo Franco, a political columnist for Corriere della Sera. Even with his immense financial power he manages to portray himself as belonging to ordinary people. Many like the fact that he is self-made, a devoted football fan, a man who breaks rules and gets away with it, a man who loves and flaunts beautiful women. Friends of his say that ten days ago, when he appeared in a Milan supermarket, he was mobbed with people shouting that they loved him. It is difficult to find out exactly what happened, but he retains a strong current of affection.

Attack in Milan

Silvio Berlusconi is very good at turning every disadvantage into an advantage. The attack in Milan confirmed, for many, his narrative that he is a victim of a hate campaign. Certainly some of the criticism has been toned down. Massimo Franco believes that Berlusconi has been able to give almost a religious dimension to his suffering. After the attack he offered his bloody face to the people. He offers forgiveness to his attacker. He calls for hate to be removed from public debate.

The Italian leader has been able to link the prosecutors, who accuse him of corruption and tax fraud, with the so-called hate campaign. The prosecutors, he said only this week, are worse than the mentally unstable man who attacked him.

The man

Berlusconi thrives on adversity. He relishes the political battle. "He is a fighter", says Carlo Rossella, an old friend. "He never gives up. He is very shrewd." It is not in his character to stand down or to be shamed into stepping aside.

Italy's silent majority

"People you couldn't imagine vote for him but are too embarrassed to admit it," one analyst told me. Italy at the moment is a centre-right country. Berlusconi has a vision that still appeals; individual freedom, economic freedom and anti-communism. Massimo Franco said that at the end of the Cold War Berlusconi understood that Italian politics needed to be redefined. He has built a party around himself.

Economic crisis

Last year Italy suffered a 5% drop in GDP. Unemployment amongst young people is running at 27%. Silvio Berlusconi has said there is no chance of cutting taxes in the immediate future. The opposition has accused him of lying to the voters, but they have not been able to offer a convincing alternative to solving the economic crisis.

As regards the downturn, the Italians have their own way of surviving. They are a nation of savers. They have strong family networks. The black economy thrives and accounts for 20% of GDP. Of those who own their own homes 85% have no mortgages.

Sex scandal

"Well, I'm not a saint," was the Italian leader's response to revelations about his parties. Time and again people will tell you "his personal life is not our problem". Italians seem reluctant to become involved in the private affairs of others. They enjoy the gossip, but most prefer not to judge.

Some do say that his media empire has promoted a TV world built around scantily-dressed showgirls. Some have even been offered seats in the European
Parliament. There is growing opposition from women's groups, who say the culture is demeaning to women, but some say the entertainment culture has helped sustain him in office.

International profile

Those close to him talk insist that he is a player on the world stage. They talk about his close relationship with the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin. They say that with the United States he is the reliable ally. After President Obama had announced the surge in Afghanistan it was Berlusconi who committed the most extra forces. Recently he moved quickly to accept body scanners. His critics say, however, that there is little substance to the idea that he is a key mediator between the Russians and the Americans. Others say that Chancellor Merkel, for one, has no interest in being close to Berlusconi.

Opposition

One of the keys to Berlusconi's survival is the opposition. It remains divided and cannot coalesce around a credible opponent. They have not been able to take advantage of Berlusconi's mistakes. One opposition MP says there is little they can do, as Berlusconi is " the centre of a massive propaganda machine". Even so, they have failed to find a political vision and a narrative to match that of the Italian leader. And so he survives. His greatest danger would be if his own coalition fell apart.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Catherine Ashton is little known in the UK but, if she ever doubted it before, she must have realised today she is now an international figure. For her three-hour questioning in the European Parliament there was a packed debating chamber with banks of cameras.

As Europe's new "foreign minister" the big question that hung over her appointment was her inexperience in foreign affairs. It was clear today she had spent the past five weeks preparing for this hearing.

The most hostile questions came from members of the UK Independence Party and the Conservatives. Lord Dartmouth attacked her for supporting the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). "On the most important foreign affairs and security issues since the second world war," he said, "your judgement has been shown to be demonstrably wrong".

Catherine Ashton was unapologetic. "I am not ashamed of what I am, and who I have been." A Conservative MEP, Charles Tannock, asked her if she was still in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. "I have not been in CND for 27 years," she said. "The situation then is not relevant now."

She was asked whether the war in Iraq was justified. She chose not to answer directly. She said she had been part of a government that had backed the invasion, but she said we are now where we are.

Many of the questions were about the structures of the EU, whether the parliament would get to question any special representatives or ambassadors. The MEPs wanted to ensure they would have scrutiny over the budget for the EU's soon-to-be-created diplomatic service.

There were questions about Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Cuba, Kosovo, the United States etc. She was confident, but sometimes bland and general. It frustrated some MEPs, who demanded to know what her vision was. Afterwards the Greens said "her hearing revealed no sense of vision". But others who had been critical before praised her performance.

Afterwards I asked her which leaders would be called at a moment of international crisis. "I suspect," she said, "in an international crisis a number of phone calls will be made. One of them will be to me."

Soon she will make her first major trip to Washington. Others will follow to the Middle East, Beijing and Moscow. By April she will have to have drawn up plans for a diplomatic service. The hurdle remains a high one, however. Will she and her diplomats really give Europe a bigger voice on the world stage? Or will powers like Britain, Germany and France be reluctant to see their own influence wane?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Catherine Ashton swept into the European Parliament to enormous attention. She could never before have faced such a session. A packed chamber. Standing room only. Scores of camera crews.

Baroness Ashton opened by saying there was a call around the world for greater European engagement. We have to answer that call, she said, and ensure that when we speak our voices are heard.

Early questions were inward-looking, obsessed with structure.

Later she was asked about her former membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Did she still support unilateral CND? When did she change her mind? What was relevant in the 1970s, she said, was not relevant in 2010.

She was later asked whether she had supported the Iraq war. She said she had been a member of the British goverment and "we are where we are".

The questions were mainly respectful. She came across as well briefed, fluent but cautious. So far there has been no real sense of what she'll do with her power.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A democracy moment in Europe today. The European Union begins the closest it gets to US-style confirmation hearings. Over the next seven days all 26 proposed European commissioners face a three-hour grilling from members of the European Parliament. They will be tested on their plans, their views and their knowledge of their portfolios.

The President of the Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, has promised "there will be no free rides". The MEPs have acquired new powers under the Lisbon Treaty and will be keen to flex their muscles. Both sides have been prepping for the appearances. The President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, has had all the commissioners in for training sessions, encouraging them, advising them.

Early attention will focus on . She is to be Europe's new foreign policy chief, called the High Representative. There are all kinds of hints that she's in for a "rough ride" and a "torrid time". Perhaps. Certainly there will be questions designed to reveal her inexperience in foreign affairs. She has never held elected office and was trade commissioner for only a year.

I expect that the questions will probe her plans for Europe's new diplomatic service, its cost and how it will be set up. Above all, she will have to answer how all of this will give Europe a stronger and more coherent voice in the world. MEPs are unlikely to draw blood, however. Last time she was questioned she was cautious but emerged as competent, with flashes of charm.

These hearings are a curious process. The MEPs can embarrass and raise objections to individual commissioners so that they are forced to stand down, but on 26 January they vote on the new Commission as a whole. Sometimes there are trade-offs. Power within the European Parliament is divided between groupings. If the socialists feel they are losing one of "their" commissioners, for instance, they could turn on someone favoured by the centre-right.

For these few days individuals who will hold considerable power within Europe will be held to account in public.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Europe has started the year gloomily. It seeps into conversations. Almost no one I meet believes that Europe's economies will rebound strongly this year.

The only inches up. In some places, like Greece, consumer confidence is actually dipping. A few fear the economic recovery is losing momentum. The majority see a spluttering, fitful rebound with growth across Europe of no more than 1%.

The new , peers into the future and concludes that the continent's long-term outlook is "not great". In the eurozone countries one in 10 people who could be working is now unemployed. Nearly 23 million people across the EU are jobless. Youth unemployment is expected to rise further this year.

China has taken over from Germany as the world's largest exporter. In speech after speech you detect that Europe is racked with concern over its lack of competitiveness.

Now amid this January hand-wringing step up the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. He is launching and determined to be heard, despite the fact that the EU has another permanent president in Herman Van Rompuy.

Prime Minister Zapatero is also worried about the future. He wants an overhaul of Europe's economy with a new strategy to raise competitiveness, stimulate job growth and increase research and development.

No one, I suspect, would argue with his intentions, but plenty might with his remedy. The answers lie in deeper European co-operation. "The path ahead," he said, "is of more economic union". Mr Zapatero wants an economic strategy which is binding on EU countries.

"We need," Mr Zapatero went on, "to have a vision, in which the European interest is the vision of every member state.  If Europe wants to keep its strength then it must unite in a globalised world. We need to change the direction the debate is taking."

It may be that, with nearly four million Spanish workers without jobs, Prime Minister Zapatero prefers to turn the economic debate into a push for more European regulation. Others are likely to submit different questions in this grand 2020 strategy debate. How are jobs created? What tax regimes encourage start-up companies? What employment laws encourage mobility of labour? What is the best balance between the public and private sectors to encourage growth? How best to build the knowledge-based industries that can take on the rest of the world?

As Europe grapples with its economic worries Greece stares them in the face. It is reeling under a mountain of debt. The men in white coats from the European Commission and the European Central Bank are in Athens, poring over Greece's plans to reduce its deficit.

The questions are these: Can a convincing plan be worked out that will hack the deficit back? If it can't, should Greece be bailed out? If the answer is 'no' what are the implications for other eurozone countries and for the wider fragile European economy?

The markets don't believe Greece's books can be trusted. They doubt the stats. That will take some fixing. Athens says it will reduce the deficit to 3% of Gross Domestic Product by 2012. It insisted today that this was not done under pressure from the EU. Maybe.

But what if the plan doesn't work and public debt continues to rise? The voices from the edge are sounding tough. The Spanish Secretary of State for European Affairs, Diego
Lopez Garrido, insists "no bail-out". The chief economist at the European Central Bank has .

So the government in Athens is working on an austerity package: salary reductions for public servants, tax hikes and a reduction in spending on social security. The unions are warning of strikes in the first week in February. Nothing is easy when it comes to sorting Greece out.

So here's the question: amid acute anxiety about the European economy will Greece be cut adrift? You wouldn't want to bet on it. Some bankers, who know a thing or two about such arguments, say Greece is too big to fail.

Listen to the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde. "I am confident," she said, "that with proper peer pressure and support from members of the eurozone, Greece will find its way back to where to should be". That smacks of compromise. The usual European way. And in chilly, gloomy times Europe does not want a full-blown crisis on its doorstep.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

La Courneuve, a suburb of Paris, comes with a reputation, and it is not good. It is one of the banlieues. And they, too, have reputations. They are places of trouble, of seething resentment, of alienation, of car-burnings, of clashes with police, of high-rise dense public housing, of recent immigrants. They are also places of dedicated community workers and well-educated students, third-generation French people who often feel excluded from mainstream France.

All of these thoughts crowded into my mind as we arrived at La Cite des 4,000. There were riots here in 2005 and this was the area that Nicholas Sarkozy, when he was interior minister, suggested should be "cleaned with a power hose".

We were there for a visit by the controversial immigration minister, Eric Besson. He has launched a debate on what it means to be French. Even the community workers, who had organised a meeting, only knew an hour beforehand that the minister was attending. He crept into a library insisting "I have nothing to fear, just an intrusion of people who want to disturb the debate". It is also true that his national identity campaign is feared and resented in many immigrant communities.

There were about 40 people in the room, many with backgrounds in the Magreb or West Africa. Some were community leaders. The dangers of the national debate were immediately apparent. Suspicions were everywhere. "One has the impression," said one young man, "of being poison... less than nothing."

Eric Besson, like other politicians, knows he is on to something. There is anxiety, not just in France, about societies changing, of known worlds disappearing. He has suggested that La Marseillaise should be sung at first division football matches and that newcomers take citizen oaths.

Yesterday, hemmed in by cameras and doubting faces, the immigration minister said: "France is not a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion; it is a conglomeration of peoples who want to live together. There is no French-born, there is a blending of France."

Few would take exception to that. He speaks of a passion for France, of the concept of a nation, of its republican traditions, of the importance of the nation state.

After just over an hour it was over. It was not much of a debate - more a series of statements. Some of those present were pleased the minister had come. We all went outside and stood around in a pale afternoon with the police presence (which is rare unless there is trouble) disappearing.

Other countries, in their own ways, are debating this issue. Politicians sense the mood. They detect that the public want new arrivals to sign up to their new countries, to become French or British or Italian. The community leaders urged Besson to come up with concrete proposals. Beyond that there is only a mood, a feeling, a sense, and communities like La Courneuve fear that.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A presidency, usually, is no small thing. It smacks of power, of ritual, of ceremony. Spain would have you agree. It has just taken over the rotating EU Presidency.

Next weekend, guests are invited to Madrid to celebrate the moment. European leaders like the presidency. They can revel in summitry, in receiving international figures, in appearing at the centre of events.

They hope, but it does not all always happen that way, that the flashing of the cameras will improve their ratings. The embattled Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will be no different. He needs all the help he can with Spain mired in debt and unemployment. Its construction industry has collapsed leaving four million out of work.

So what will the Spanish do with this six-month bubble of power?

The Spanish foreign minister has laid out some priorities: implementing the Lisbon Treaty, finding a way out of the financial crisis and initiatives to develop the rights and freedoms of EU citizens. Oh, there is also the matter of a Palestinian state, "the sooner the better", according to the foreign minister. And perhaps new openings for Cuba.

All of these may be important or even desirable, but it's a fair bet that across Europe, if you were to tap opinion in the bars and brasseries, there would be surprising unanimity on what to do even with a sliver of power.

Jobs, growth, getting Europe moving again. The rest can go hang.

For out there, even as the recession recedes, it leaves in its wake a stunning crisis. Across large parts of Europe a young generation is without work. The stats speak for themselves. Youth unemployment in Spain is 42%. In Greece it's 25%. In Italy it's almost 27%. Ireland is around there too.

Such numbers, without hope, can have profound consequences for societies. This is not just a human crisis, however, it is a potential crisis for the single currency. This could be the biggest challenge for the euro. How do these countries stimulate their economies while having to reduce their deficits to comply with rules that govern belonging to the euro.

To be fair to the Spanish prime minister, he wants to make economic recovery a priority of his EU Presidency. The danger, for him, is that the EU appears too focused on its
internal structures, on making the Lisbon Treaty work. Already one survey suggests that two-thirds of the Spanish people have no interest in EU business.

The political risk for Prime Minister Zapatero is that he becomes the face of an institution that seems distracted by, for instance, setting up a new diplomatic service. There is another problem for Madrid: the wings of the rotating presidency have been clipped.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, which now governs how the EU functions, summits will be chaired not by Mr Zapatero, but by Herman Van Rompuy, the permanent President of the European Council. Mr Zapatero can't guarantee a seat at the final press conference.
Back home he could be judged an empty suit.

Mr Van Rompuy has already suggested an informal summit in February to discuss economic problems. There may well be arguments over whose power extends where and, if that happens, the risk is that the EU's leaders seem too focused on themselves and their institutions rather than on the needs of ordinary people.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?