On Wednesday Mrs Merkel takes a few hours off from the Euro crisis to appear in Minsk with France, Ukraine and Russia to see if they can reach a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis.

Russia will want the west to put on hold any ideas of arming the Kiev government, and will ask about recent NATO deployments. Russia will also want to know when and how the Ukrainian government will stop shelling its own citizens in East Ukraine. The Ukraine government will want guarantees of no further Russian support for UKrainian citizens in armed revolt against the Kiev government, and will argue that much of the violence has come from rebels armed by Russia. France and Germany will presumably urge caution and peace on both sides, and will seek to reach an agreement based loosely on the positions the two sides currently occupy. There is talk of a demilitarised zone around the present front line between the two forces.

It is difficult to know how the Ukraine government can pick up the pieces and offer fair and peaceful government to the whole country after what it has done to some of its civilians. The Kiev government will not want to trust the armed rebels, or forgive them their attacks. Similarly the rebels will not easily accept Kiev sovereignty, and will distrust the Kiev government. It may be possible to draw up new lines, allowing parts of East Ukraine a large measure of self government based on the territories the two sides have now established. The longer a peaceful solution takes, the more likely the rebels will want full independence and the less likely Kiev will wish to give it to them.

This is a huge test for the politicians and officials and involved. Most of the west does not want a war with Russia, but nor does it wish to see an easy Russian victory. Condemning Russian military intervention is the easy part of the response. Finding a way to resolve the conflict on acceptable terms is altogether more difficult. Delay in finding a diplomatic solution both sides can accept makes a prolonged war in Ukraine more likely, and increases the risk of a wider flare up in violence. It is a great pity the EU started out on its expansionist course with the Ukraine without properly considering the likely reaction of pro Russian people inside Ukraine, and the ability of Russia to give them support.

Ever since she conceded over setting up the Euro to France, Germany has been a semi detached member. Germany has willed the end, a common currency. She has refused the means, a political, monetary and banking union. Germany has wanted a relatively weak currency which helps her export and build up large surpluses. She has not wanted to share her wealth with the other members of the zone who are struggling financially.

Germany has been adamant that she will not pay for any weak country’s balance of payments deficit. They need to export more and import less. She has refused to prop up weak banks in other countries, saying that they need to lend less and raise more share capital. She has refused to grant or lend money to weak states that spend too much and need to borrow. She has told them to cut spending and raise taxes. All this has been called Germany’s austerity policy for the Euro. Most people think it has been followed, that Germany is in charge, and Greece will have to submit again.

It is true that all these approaches are formally Germany’s policy. It is also true that other countries in the Euro have been forced to cut spending, cut wages, recapitalise banks and do other prudent but deflationary things to try to live within the Euro. These policies will not allow the Euro to be backed by a successful, growing and prosperous area. In some co0untries they had led to mass unemployment, big cuts in wages, and a generation of young people unable to join the workforce.

However, it has not gone all Germany’s way. If Germany had kept them all on these policies all the time the Euro would have broken up by now. Just as Germany requires more cuts and more austerity, so behind the scenes step by step the rest force Germany to accept more responsibility for the communal debts, and to offer more money to the laggard economies. Germany has lost a series of crucial battles for prudence. In 2011 when the currency was near collapse Germany accepted large lines of credit being granted by the ECB to commercial banks in the zone. In 2014 Germany was forced to accept quantitative easing to bid up the bond prices of other states in the union and create more Euro cash.
Today Germany has to accept that the ECB will finance the Greek commercial banks, offering them as much cash as they need. These banks in turn can finance the Greek state.

Germany- and others – have also had to accept major debt write offs by both Greece and Cyprus in their respective past bankruptcies. Both were allowed to stay in the Euro despite their poor financial conduct.

The battle between Greece and Germany will prove once again that Germany has to lose if she wants to keep the Euro. Germany has to turn a blind eye to some new fix, some extend and pretend approach to Greek debt and continued cash supply to Greek banks. Alternatively Germans along with others will have to accept a major write down of Greek debt from another bankruptcy of the state along with possible losses in commercial banks if Germany prevents further ECB support. This morning the Greek Prime Minister has made a fighting speech implying he either wins or he declares bankruptcy and leaves the Euro. Germany and other states will take a big hit on Greek bonds if that happens.

Germany needs to wake up to the shocking reality. All the time she stays in the Euro she will be forced one way or an other to pay more of its bills. She has but a minority share of the votes (18%) and decision making, in a zone now dominated by states who believe they should be able to spend more of Germany’s money for her. So it will be, unless Germany has decided to move from semi detached to outside the zone. If she stays in she will discover she is in a terrace with shared walls she needs to pay to repair.

On Thursday afternoon I visited the exhibition of the four remaining copies of Magna Carta in the House of Lords. There was a sense of reverence in the Robing Room as we peered through the glass cabinets at the small and powerful writing of the scribes 800 years before. I felt pride that our country had expressed and fought over such powerful ideas of liberty so long ago. I also felt a sense of how fragile freedom and honest government can be, recalling the many arguments, Parliamentary battles and wars that were fought in the centuries that followed to develop and cherish some of the ideals embodied in the Charter. King John, after all, overthrew Magna Carta not long after signing it.

The most enduring core of Magna Carta revolves around two big ideas. The first was that those who paid the taxes had the right to be consulted and have their grievances taken seriously before approving a new tax levy.

* (12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an ‘aid’ – except in the three cases specified above – or a ‘scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. etc

This fundamental principle was taken up by successive Parliaments, which prized highly their right to be consulted, and later their right to decide, what taxes would be levied.

The second big idea was that everyone should be free of guilt and free from arrest or detention by government, unless good reason was shown and they were afforded a fair trial of their case. People today mainly praise clauses 39 and 40, but 38 is also central.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. -( See more at: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation)

Today the threat to our ancient liberties comes not from a tyrannical monarch or even from a power hungry UK government, but from our entanglements with the EU. The principle that we have redress before approving taxes is damaged or broken by the levies made on us by the EU. These are often retrospective and are required whether we are happy or not with EU policy. No change of government can unilaterally abate the EU taxes.

The principle that people cannot be detained without trial could also be damaged by the different justice systems of parts of the EU, where innocent UK citizens could be detained under a European Arrest Warrant and not treated as the heirs to Magna Carta would expect.

In these respects Je suis Magna Carta.

Today I am posting twice about Magna Carta, in commemoration of the Parliamentary exhibition of the four extant versions of the document. This first post is a reissue of last year’s offering a brief guide to the Charter.

I agree with the Prime Minister that Magna Carta is seen to be a seminal document of English history. I am happy that it should be honoured and remembered for its 800th birthday. It has come to represent the important assertion of the right to a free trial, an early statement of an Englishman’s liberties, and part of the long process to control the powers of the King or the executive government.

I disagree with those, including some who write into this site, who see Magna Carta as a timeless document setting out our liberties in a way which we can never amend or alienate. Magna Carta was a staging post on a long journey to liberty. It was a step forward in curbing the power of the Crown, but it can tell us nothing about our rights vis a vis the EU or the ECJ.

Magna Carta was a peace treaty between the barons and the Crown. It set up a group of 25 elected peers to try to ensure good conduct on the part of the King after signing. At its best it set out eternal truths and freedoms which we still value. At its worst it was unkind and partial. Often it now strikes us as being archaic and irrelevant, as many of the grievances it sought to tackle were rooted in a feudal system which no longer applies.

Few today would want to see its clause about women and justice enforced. “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband”. Nor would the right to give heirs in marriage “but not to someone of lower social standing” pass muster.

Its comments on foreigners might be more popular with the UKIP tendency: “As soon as peace is restored we will remove from the kingdom all foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants and the mercenaries”, but difficult and contentious to enforce today.

Removing all fish weirs on rivers is not such a central preoccupation as in 1215, as we have gone for windmills rather than for water wheels on rivers and rely more on sea fishing that river fishing.

The first requirement that the “English Church shall be free and its liberties unimpaired” has less relevance in a multi faith UK. The second embedded a “fair” rate of Inheritance Tax which might be to modern liking as it now seems low owing to inflation and only applied to Earls and Knights. Earls could not be charged more than £100, and knights not more than £5.

We still like the emphasis on fair trial for those accused, and the system of fines proportionate to the offence.

So to those who worship Magna Carta and dislike what successive Parliaments have done to it, I suggest you first read it in full.

David Cameron is not irrelevant or wrongly absent from the issue of the future of Ukraine. The decision of Germany and France to take up the question of peace with Russia does not make the UK irrelevant any more than it makes the USA irrelevant. Russia is well aware that NATO is the main decision making body over the use of western force, and the UK is an important part of NATO’s political decision making and command structure.

Let me begin by making clear I do not support Russia. I condemn any supply of Russian arms to the rebel forces, and any use of Russian military personnel to help them. The last thing the Ukraine needs is more weapons and further resort to violence.

By the same logic I do not support the west supplying weapons or military assistance to the Ukrainian government. The west should do all it can to promote a political settlement within the troubled territory. Sometime the protagonists are going to have to sit down and talk to each other, so why not start now rather than after hundreds more have been killed by both sides in the conflict.

Ukraine shows that far from being a force for peace in Europe, the EU can become a destabilising influence. Ukraine was relatively stable before the EU offered closer links with Ukraine and encouraged politicians sympathetic to the west in what was a very split country. Today the pro western government in Kiev is unable to speak for many of the Russian language citizens in their area, with the dreadful consequences we see. I do not want the west actively supporting or encouraging a government which shells and fires on its own civilians, whatever the provocation. I want the west to assist that government to talk to all its citizens and discuss what a new political settlement might look like that could meet the legitimate political aims of the many in the parts of Ukraine that do not currently look to Kiev for succour.

Russia may well be trying to split the west by hosting Germany and France. Nonetheless I wish Germany and France well in seeking a negotiated peace. Of course they must make clear that NATO will not accept Russian military expansion into NATO guaranteed countries that wish to remain independent of Russian control. They are however right to see if there is a political way forward in a country close to Russia, a non NATO member, which has stumbled into civil war in part thanks to the offers of the EU as well as owing to Russian military opportunism. We are told they will try to draft a paper and talk again at the week-end.

I do not support or welcome EU adventurism, whilst condemning Russian aggression. The EU has behaved badly. It needs to redeem itself by leading overtures for a peace in Ukraine based on voices and votes, not shells and guns.

The Defence Select Committee of the Commons is wrong to chide the UK government for doing too little to fight ISIL. They are right to warn against supporting Assad in Syria as part of any campaign against ISIL.

ISIL are a very nasty group of fanatics, but they are not unique in a troubled Middle East. They are one faction amongst several fighting for supremacy. They need the oxygen of publicity to help their recruitment. They use the western media to show their potential followers that they are able to stand up to the west, that they are the best at pushing ahead with extremist aims, and they can command the attention of the most powerful states and alliances. They use extreme exhibitions of bestial violence to draw attention and seek a response.

ISIL want to turn local wars into international wars. They want to turn a Sunni/Shia conflict into a wider conflict between Islam and the west.If our government defines them as unique amongst all the warring bands it flatters them and serves their purpose. They are trying to get Jordan to cut loose from what they define as the western side of the conflict. If we allow ourselves to be driven into committing our armed forces to intervention on the ground we give them a further cause to resist and a new argument to terrified local populations to accept their mastery.

It is not easy in the west to urge caution or to say there are limits to what we can and should do. The west wishes to believe in its own invincibility and right. Any sensible retrospection on our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya should give us pause for thought. It is not always possible to make things better for people living in these countries, however good our intentions and however skilled our armed forces. Sometimes it is best to avoid doing harm.

It is said that the western air strikes to date have arrested the advances of ISIL, and have given the Kurdish forces the chance to fight back successfully in some places. That may prove to be an intelligent use of western power. However, it does not solve all the problems. It still requires substantial military effort by local forces on the ground, and above all will need great political skill in turning any victory there into a successful outcome.

Will the Kurds wish to live in some remodelled Iraq or will they want their own country? When will the Iraqi government be able to win over most of its Sunni population? When will there be some outcome to the long and bitter Syrian civil war?

Bombing more targets in Iraq, or sending in more special forces and military advisers, is not going to solve these huge problems. In the meantime it is important not to rise to ISIL’s provocation in ways which they can exploit.

So far so good. The new Greek government has been touring the capitals of the EU, seeking to reassure and to push others to support them in a bid to extend the repayment dates of their debt and to make it easier to service. They have come up with sophisticated lines on how with agreement they could live with their debts, and all could believe they will ultimately meet the obligations, but not anytime soon.

They have also promise to live within their means month by month so they do need additional borrowings to pay for current spending. This forecast relies on getting in more tax revenue, and is despite their wish to increase certain spending programmes as part of their relief of austerity. Some will think this is feasible, others will worry lest the wish to spend outweighs the passion for prudence.

Meanwhile the day to day expenses of the government need cash. This is coming from issues of Treasury Bills as well as from revenue. The commercial banks can help by buying some of them. Germany is concerned, as the ECB is lending to the commercial banks, who in turn may be lending to the Greek government. That is not what Germany has in mind to continue Greece’s march to sound finance. The ECB’s decision to disallow Greek bonds as collateral for loans turns up the pressure and makes it more difficult for the Greek government to finance itself.

The Greek government has a point when it seeks a breathing space to construct new spending and taxing plans compatible with all the past debts. The EU and IMF have a point if they say there is to be no more additional borrowing for new spending, and there must be a sensible agreed plan for servicing and repaying the inherited debts. The irresistible force of Syriza has not yet directly hit the immovable object of German resistance to debt cancellation or rescheduling in effective partial cancellation. It is still too difficult to call how it will go, though much is riding on it for the EU economies and for the future of the Euro itself. If the lenders agree to some version of what Syriza wants, lengthening the repayment date and lowering the service charges, that is in effect cancelling some part of the debts. Why wouldn’t other states then want similar relief?

Some are asking for my views on how to deliver justice to England. I set these out earlier this week, and my views have not changed.

As I understand the William Hague proposals England will now decide her own spending within English agreed totals and will decide her own tax rates where Scotland has devolved power. That is progress, and I look forward to seeing the detail of how and when this will happen.

On Monday Parliament debated a new complaints system for the armed forces. This is part of the work the government is doing to improve and define the Military Covenant.

The forces covenant is meant to give armed service personnel decent terms and conditions, recognising that military discipline takes away some rights other workers enjoy. During the debate I raised the issue of what happens when a member of the armed services has to move to a different location when instructed to do so. This can be difficult for the family and disruptive of the wife or husband’s employment. In view of this surely there should be some flexibility in the government rules to help those who are doing all they can to co-operate with military requirements? Late requests to move at short notice are particularly difficult for all concerned.

I have myself for some time urged the MOD to look at offering more of its armed service personnel a home base to which they return following duty abroad, and to limit the number of moves required within the UK. This would assist more military staff to buy their own home if they wished, with the help of the MOD schemes. It would enable children of serving personnel to have more stability in their schooling, and would be less disruptive for husbands and wives. As the average ages of serving military personnel coincides with the most popular ages to have children we do need to help families when one of their members wishes to serve the nation.

I have campaigned for more assistance with home purchase. Military service usually terminates well before normal retirement age. Many ex military personnel have no home to live in when their service ends. If they have moved between various military establishments, renting MOD accommodation, they often have little or no priority on housing lists in individual Council areas. We should be able to do better for our armed services, and plan with them their return to civilian life. The Minister assured me they were finding good levels of take up of MOD home ownership schemes, but more could be done.

I naturally agree that Labour’s policies would be bad for business. Their energy price freeze policy threatens normal pricing behaviour, annoys the companies, creates investment uncertainties and now also ironically means dearer energy when world prices are falling.

Their policy of more intervention and taxation of financial services and banking hits an important UK revenue earner, following their disastrous period regulating the industry badly in the previous decade. They want higher Corporation tax which is never a crowd pleaser with big business, higher individual income tax, not popular with the higher paid, and often use anti business rhetoric. Labour regards business as either the source of social problems, or the agent that must be made to remedy social problems which others might think the government should fix.

I have no problem in a democracy with anyone with an interesting view expressing it. The Acting Chief Executive of Boots made some good points – and one or two points I do not agree with. That makes a political market. He has also illustrated exactly what I predicted when I explained to senior business people that if they used the name of the company they work for but do not own to make a highly political point, it will drag the company into politics and may result in reputational damage to that company.

The shareholders, other employees and customers of Boots may not like this. In what sense does the Acting Chief Executive speak for them? Is it wise to venture the company’s reputation in this way, when the Acting CEO does not know the views and voting intentions of all the other stakeholders in the company? By all means let’s hear from Mr Pessina as an individual with his anti Labour views, but let’s hear less from Boots. Labour now sees it as an opportunity to put the boot into Boots, as they are stung by the criticism. Neither Labour nor Boots will gain from these rows.