Allie Renison

Reading the Sunday newspapers, you could be forgiven for thinking an earth-shattering agreement was reached in Paris - one which outdid even the Kyoto Protocol in the way of binding agreement across the world on climate action. The deal was heavy on political will and ambition (or at least expressions thereof) but as many experts are now queuing up to say, offered little in the form of hard targets and binding commitments around reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is of course a pragmatic approach to doing policy at the global level, particularly given the extreme variation in capacity and priorities between countries operating at vastly different levels of development. If the EU had had its way however, all of targets laid down in Paris would have been legally binding.

When Nigel Farage had the temerity to nod at Bob Crow's euroscepticism while paying his respects to the late RMT leader, some were quick to accuse him of cheap political point-scoring. I suspect that many of them hardly knew Crow because he never missed an opportunity to slam the EU for being 'a regional engine of corporate globalisation'. And eurosceptics of all political persuasions have reason to be disheartened by the loss of a voice like his to their cause. Bob Crow wasn't a eurosceptic by convenience nor did he do it simply to pander to rising populist anti-EU sentiment. For years he regularly led union members in protests against EU directives enforcing competition on Europe's railways, most recently in October.

Whether it wants to or not, Washington has a role to play in the UK's EU debate. Eurosceptics and Europhiles constantly wrangle over what the US position is on Brexit, splitting hairs interpreting State Department officials' carefully worded remarks in order to claim victory for their side. The latest episode in this running saga sees the sceptics feeling vindicated by Washington's exasperation with the EU. Assistant Secretary of State (for European Affairs no less) Victoria Nuland appears to have landed herself in some rather hot water - both diplomatic and political. In a reportedly leaked phone call to the US ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland is heard unceremoniously blasting the EU and pushing the UN to take over in mediating the escalating crisis in Kiev.

Is it really worth getting excited about David Laws' suggestion that the Lib Dems could put an In/Out referendum pledge in their 2015 manifesto? It's not the first time, after all, and anyone who follows these things closely will know that below the excited headlines, there is always a more complex reality. When you burrow into what Laws is really proposing, you realise that it could prove a thorny issue in coalition negotiations in 2015 as it contrasts sharply with David Cameron's own pledge. Speaking at the start of the Lib Dems' Glasgow conference, Laws effectively recommitted the party to its 2010 promise, saying they would back an In/Out referendum if there were a 'material change' to Britain's EU relationship.

The much-ballyhooed Balance of Competences Review has just published its first set of reports and the lines have already been drawn between the In-at-all-costs camp and the Out-no-matter-whats. The former, jubilant at conclusions drawn by civil servants that EU competences across a number areas are just right, see fit to run around shouting 'I told you so' from the rafters. More hardened sceptics wearily remind them of their conviction from the outset that this was always going to be a technocratic sham of an exercise. The reports are of course crowd-sourced, a collation of evidence. The conclusions, less so. One such conclusion counters the submissions criticising European red tape by maintaining that the process of regulation for SME's is being 'reversed at EU level'.