Allemagne quartorze points, Royaume-Uni 14 points, la Russie 272 points, Ukraine 230 points, la Grèce 218 points. So it was a runaway victory for the Russian entry in the Eurovision Song Contest, held in Belgrade on May 24, and oblivion for most west European entries. The centre of gravity moves further east. See you in Moscow in 2009!

Some (western European) commentators see the modern contest as a great conspiracy of political block voting, with the Nordics, the Balkans, the East Europeans voting for their neighbours and so swinging the results.
 
But it seems the reality is much more complicated. It reflects the complex ethnic mix in so many European countries. The fact that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine each gave the full 12 points to the Russian entry (as did Israel) reflects the size of the Russian ethnic population in these countries rather than any political block vote.
 
Likewise for the former Yugoslavia, with its intermixing of Serbian, Bosnian and Slovenian populations. Bearing in mind that you cannot vote for your own national entry, what more natural than to vote for your ethnic identity? Douze points for the cousins. By the same token, Turkey always does well from the German voters, mirroring its population of 2.6 million of Turkish extraction, although I see that this year Greece took Germany’s 12 points and Turkey only 10.
 
If you managed to miss three hours of the actual final, then you can treat yourself to a (brief) taster of any of the finalists - and maybe decide that the outcome was not so unfair after all. There’s an amalgam of western pop and eastern music which can work rather well – and is maybe part of a changing European identity – an eastwards shift in our cultural centre of gravity.

It seems so different from the old days, when the Franco–German alliance was the central core of European integration. With new leaders come new perspectives. President Sarkozy used his March visit to London to woo the British, with a speech to the British Parliament where he paid unheard-of tributes to Britain’s qualities and set out a detailed agenda for Anglo-French co-operation.

The elegance of Mme Carla Sarkozy gave extra media colour to what was a highly successful state visit. If he wooed, she certainly wowed. The Entente Cordiale, signed in 1904 between Britain and France, has a new lease of life.
 
The President’s message was, to coin a phrase once much loved of some British politicians, that the UK should be at the heart of Europe, even implying that an Anglo-French partnership could be the new driver for the EU. One practical initiative is that ministers from the two countries will meet on a quarterly basis – presumably matching the bilateral sessions between Paris and Berlin. Thirteen French ministers accompanied the President to London.

Almost everything in the President’s agenda involved bilateral initiatives, but mostly set in an EU context. On the other hand there was little rhetoric from Gordon Brown which indicated any new enthusiasm for Europe.
 
Still, it’s a reflection of how EU priorities are changing, that even the most sceptical journalists were hard put to identify subjects of disagreement. Not even the common agricultural policy was much of a bone of contention (after all, we must learn to love the CAP in the face of soaring world prices!). Whether or not to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony seems about the only discordant item. No indication that energy liberalisation was discussed.
 
Especially interesting would be to know what was said behind the scenes about defence. Sarkozy has already indicated that France may wish to rejoin the integrated command structure of NATO, abandoned by De Gaulle in 1966, and will provide additional forces for Afghanistan, but nothing was said publicly about strengthening the European Security and Defence Policy and France’s wish for a stronger ESDP planning capability.
 
A stronger European identity in NATO may be France’s price for rejoining the alliance. This remains highly contentious for the US and probably for the British too.

On the other hand there was agreement on an Anglo-French maintenance contract for the A400M transport aircraft when this comes into service, leaving the Germans to their own devices, and reinforced arrangements for joint procurement and for pooling of helicopters, aircraft carriers and maritime aircraft in joint missions under EU or NATO auspices.
 
Certainly Sarkozy feels temperamentally closer to the UK than to Germany. There is no evidence of a close personal rapport with Angela Merkel of the sort which he seems to have with Gordon Brown and there have been specific problems, notably over vehicle emissions, over the independence of the ECB and over his idea for a Mediterranean Union (resolved in advance of the March EU summit – see Annex 1). Nor is Germany a natural partner on defence issues as Berlin faces politically painful challenges in putting German troops into combat zones.
     
In the end, though, the demands of realpolitik will determine alliances. The Franco-German understanding in not dead.

Talking of which, I note that Angela Merkel said that her CDU party agreed with Sarkozy’s UMP that Turkey should have a privileged partnership rather than full EU membership. This promises interesting enlargement negotiations when France takes over the EU presidency in July and certainly marks a fundamental difference with British policy. Another issue which failed to feature in the public pronouncements in London!

France and the UK both have relatively new leaders who could change Europe, but so do others. In Cyprus, for instance, there are signs of movement following the election of President Christofias, including demolishing barriers in Nicosia’s main shopping street. A symbol of hope, even though there’s a long way to go to unification.

I see that the new Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is threatening a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty unless President Kaczynski’s party supports ratification in Parliament. The party withdrew its support, demanding the same opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights as secured by the UK.

It seems that June 12 has been set as the date for the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, the only country to hold such a vote (unless Tusk has to make good his threat). The Irish vote will not be a walkover  Sinn Fein will campaign for a no vote; Jean-Marie Le Pen has announced that he will also participate. It promises a fascinating contest where turnout will be crucial. A no vote would of course block ratification of the Treaty: back to the drawing board.

Europe is once again facing an external crisis which will require the most skilful handling. It concerns the future of Kosovo, seedbed of the Balkan wars some 15 years ago. On November 17 a general election in the province reinforced the demand for independence – unilateral if necessary. December 10 is the deadline for the international community to take a decision on the province’s future.

The conflicts of the early 1990s in the wake of Yugoslavia’s collapse remain an awful memory, an indictment of Europe’s inability to deal with a major crisis on its own doorstep. Some 100,000 people were killed and millions displaced. Those TV reports from Mostar, Sarajevo and Srebrenica will stay long in the memory. How could we let it all happen, and be so impotent?

It was only the intervention of the United States which ultimately brought a kind of peace to the region, culminating in the NATO action against Milosevic for his programme of ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians.

Europe has responded to the challenge. I believe that the EU can take much of the credit for bringing stability to the region over last 10 years. It has deployed its economic and peace-making capabilities effectively, has shepherded Macedonia (sorry, FYROM) through threats of civil war and has used the prospect of partnership and ultimately EU membership to bring about political and social change across the region.

But the forces which drive politics in the Balkans are dark and deep. Serbs will tell you that Kosovo is to them what Jerusalem is to the Jews. For them any prospect of Kosovo independence brings talk of war, while in Kosovo itself there are threats that the guns will come out if independence is not granted.

The US favours independence, while the Russians are fiercely defending the Serb position and demand a UN solution (where they have a veto). Can the Europeans stand together in their positioning? They have made a commitment to do so, but clearly there are differences of opinion. The Brits and French may recognise an independent Kosovo, but others are worried about what their own ethnic minorities might be tempted to do. How about the Turks in Cyprus, the Albanians in Greece or the Basques?

A proposal from the EU envoy for Kosovo, Wolfgang Ischinger, that a decision on the status of Kosovo should be shelved, has received short shrift from both sides.

It seems that the Commission is playing the partnership/membership card as strongly as it can. Commissioner Olli Rehn signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia on November 7, with its promise of financial assistance and closer links with EU on the path to membership. This could be ratified by member countries in January, but one can imagine certain delays if the Serbian government kicks up rough over Kosovo.

Russian President Putin is the hero of many Serbs, who see him as their champion over the Kosovo issue, some even hoping that the Russians would consider military intervention on their behalf. As Putin increases the rhetoric and employs gestures such as the stand-off on over-flying of Siberia to demonstrate that Russia is a great power again, Balkans policy will be a here-and-now indicator of his real thinking.

I must say, the future of energy supply is an escalating issue in EU-Russia relations, especially in light of the reciprocity provisions in the latest energy proposals. The Commission reckons that half of Europe’s gas will come from Russia by 2030 – double the current proportion, while state-owned Gazprom is looking for partners like Eon to strengthen its position in the European market. A fascinating study by Capgemini warns of trouble ahead.

We talk as if Russia holds all the cards on energy supply, but I was struck by estimates indicating that without massive new investment Russian oil production would begin to decline as from about 2015 while domestic demand is continuing to grow. So where is the investment to come from? This will surely be a key factor in the future of EU-Russia relations.

Kosovo is NOW. Turkish membership is a much longer game. I must say, the Commission’s autumn report on Turkey’s progress to membership is more positive than we had been led to expect. There is recognition of the way in which the Turkish army’s threatened intervention had been handled and the integrity of the July elections, as well as the continued growth of the economy, which has been so impressive.

The Commission is playing a difficult hand, trying the keep the show on the road while acknowledging the political reluctance in many member states to see Turkey as an EU member.

Olli Rehn is forthright in defending membership. Quite right too. Turkey has transformed itself over many decades in preparing for EU membership, while for the EU having an Islamic state as a member will be of profound importance in relating to the rest of the Moslem world and a rejection of the Clash of Civilisations postulated by Huntingdon.

A big concern for the Commission is that the Turks themselves will turn against membership, frustrated by the negative messages from those like President Sarkozy, who is now proposing a group of Wise Men to map the way ahead for Europe. See this interview with Turkish Secretary General for EU Affairs Mustafa Oguz Demiralp for more.

Just a word on the 2004 enlargement, which was a key justification for the revision of the treaties because it was assumed that an EU of 27 would require new mechanisms to work efficiently. But maybe not: Helen Wallace’s recent analysis of the impact of enlargement on EU policy-making indicates that the Nice formula has worked rather well since 2004. Far from creating gridlock, she says, it has been business as usual.