Anybody who follows the news will know that Newsweek recently made the slightly absurd claim that a soldier at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Koran down the toilet. Clearly, they didn’t think through the physics of the situation, and evidently later had to retract the story. The official White House line was that Newsweek had done ‘lasting damage’ to the US image in the Muslim world. Given that the Pentagon have now released details of incidents at Guantanamo Bay where guards kicked, wrote obscenities in, and threw water and splashed urine on copies of the Koran, this frankly makes the White House look plainly and openly vindictive.

Before condemning Newsweek, the White House must surely have looked into the case to confirm it wasn’t true. And in the course of that investigation, these other incidents must surely have cropped up. And yet the White House has the audacity to condemn not the soldiers who have abused the Koran, and by association the Muslim world as a whole, but Newsweek. Even though the central message of the story – that the Koran was being mishandled – was effectively true. It’s not even that difficult to see that the ideas of covering something in urine and that of flushing it down the toilet are not that far removed from each other, and could easily become confused in translation.

The Newsweek story caused riots across the Muslim world, and thus indirectly led to the deaths of at least fifteen people in Afghanistan. Does the White House really believe that these people were protesting because of the particular details of the Newsweek story, or does it believe that the riots were caused by the US’s lack of respect for other cultures? Or does the White House no longer hold any true beliefs, other than belief in the supremacy of the US and US citizens?

Of course, this action is not a million miles removed from our own Andrew Gilligan incident, whereby he reported that the Dodgy Dossier had been ‘sexed up’. Effectively, it had. And yet, for tripping up on the details – in this case, misrepresenting the position of David Kelly – Gilligan and the Beeb were condemned. Yet the story was basically true.

Is it right that administrations should cover their embarrassments by ridiculing the relatively minor errors of others? The argument can be made that the media are forever condemning politicians for minor slips and lexical errors. But, in my mind at least, this does not mean that they can do the same to the media. Politicians, whether they like it or not, are quite rightly held to a higher standard. They have to prove to us that they are worthy of leading the country, and that they have the moral standing necessary to lead a country morally. To refuse to admit to a wider problem because of small errors in accusations – indeed, to ridicule the person who made those accusations – is neither moral nor open.

And to think, politicians wonder why the public don’t trust them.

Just days after the French rejected the EU constitution, the Dutch have done the same. Not that it was much of a surprise. Mr Juncker, President of the EU, is obviously not happy. The Beeb says

Mr Juncker seemed so distressed that he could hardly take in the fact of the second “No” vote. The mood in Brussels is deep gloom.

I’ve never really imagined Brussels as a happy place anyway. But maybe that’s just me.

Last time I wrote about this, when the French rejected the Constitution, I couldn’t come up with a viable solution to get around this impasse. Now I’ve come up with one. And it’s remarkably simple: Separate out the Constitution from the Treaty. Make the Constitution a short statement of self-evident rights and truths – which one would expect to be in a Constitution – and then have a separate treaty with all the legal eagle stuff in it. Then you can treat the Treaty as a Treaty, reforming it and remolding it over time until you eventually find the right mix, and the Constitution should sail through and easily be ratified by all twenty-five countries.

To the papers… The Guardian still appears to be mourning the loss, though it’s overcome its initial anger: “Crushing defeat leaves EU vision in tatters”; it also appears to think we’re “facing the prospect of a protracted period of recrimination, conflict and crisis”; The FT is somewhat less emotional: “Europe in turmoil as the Dutch vote No”.

Judging by the state of The Guardian, you’d expect The Indy to be in floods – and yet. whilst it’s clearly not a happy chappy (“The Netherlands has delivered a crushing “no” vote on the European constitution and plunged the EU into a crisis of confidence unprecedented in almost five decades of European integration”), it does at least seem to be looking forward, rather than excessively wailing over spilt milk.

I’m really quite surprised at The Guardian’s reaction to all of this, and for the first time in a long while feel slightly alienated by it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this degree of apparent grief, bordering on depression, from a national newspaper – and particularly not the Guardian. It’s so far gone that it’s bordering on parody – I almost expect to see the Constitution get a full page obit.

So where will things go from here? It’s hard to say, because this is European politics, in which logic seems to play no part. After a brief period of depression, the politicians will just have to regroup and see where they can take us. They’ll probably try redrafting a bit, and trying to get it past the countries again. And failing. And then they’ll have to do something pro-active, like reconsider the need for a Constitution and what should be in it. And then we might just get somewhere.

With fifty-five percent of the French voters giving the EU consitution the thumbs down, many of today’s papers are using words like ‘crisis’, ‘confusion’ and ‘fear’ today. There’s even talk of ‘huge’ margins, which seems a bit over the top. Even The Indy, which declared on Saturday ‘The significance of this poll lies in the campaign, not the result’, gets its knickers in a bit of a twist. Though it does seem to accept the result of this referendum, unlike Tony Blair’s victory in the General Election. Nobody seems to even mention the 70 percent turnout, and ask what it is we could learn from this. If we Brits have a referendum, I’d be surprised if fifty percent of voters bother to vote.

The Guardian has Europe stunned by the result, and its wesbite has Tony Blair calling for a time of reflection. This combination makes it sound rather like somebody’s died. They even seem to be progressing through the various stages of grief: We’ve had denial all this week, while they’ve been clinging on to the hope that a ‘Yes’ vote might just happen, and today we appear to have moved on to anger:

France’s no is highly damaging to the credibility and popularity of the EU, already in very poor shape as shown by the record low turnout in the European elections last summer.

You evil French people… You’ve let the EU down, you’ve let Chirac down, but most of all you’ve let yourselves down.

The Telegraph is obviously pleased that the vote has gone their way, and they’ve done the predictable thing of printing a picture of a smiling Chirac casting his ballot.

The Mail’s position can be summed up by saying that it’s the fifth headline on their website, just below “Rod’s daughter steps out with stepmum’s ex” and two Big Brother headlines. Despite the fact that today’s print edition says Big Brother has ‘reached new levels of debauchery’.

So what does all this mean for the future of the Constitution? Well, pretty much what we’ve all known for weeks. It’s not going to get very far without some redrafting. Which is incredibly predictable: You won’t get hundreds of millions of people of different countries and cultures to agree to a 400-page document easily. And, to be perfectly honest, I’d be surprised to see it happen at all.

It’s clear to anybody that the EU isn’t working, and is in need of reform. But the reason it isn’t working is because it’s tried to become something it never intended to be in the first place – so the foundations are not appropriate. And to wait until there are twenty-five members and then try and negotiate a new set of firmer foundations seems rather silly. Yet this is the situation in which we find ourselves, and there’s not an awful lot that can be done to change the past. So, where do we go from here? I don’t know. It would be impossible for the EU to break up completely, because some of the bonds are too strong. Piecemeal reform of existing agreements wouldn’t solve the overall problem. So it looks like we’re stuck with what we’ve got for now, with all of its quirks and inconsistencies. The existing treaties may not be a practical way to manage the newly enlarged EU, but, at the end of the day, when has European politics ever been straightforward and practical?

When trying to decide what exactly the document Lord Goldsmith produced and put before the House of Commons before the vote on the War in Iraq actually was, it would seem sensible to consult it’s author directly. Not surprisingly, when the Daily Telegraph interviewed him earlier this week, they did, and received the following response:

I never said it was a summary.

Except, if we flip back to November 2003 in Hansard, then he was, erm, saying it was a summary:

This statement was a summary of my view of the legal position

So he did say it was a summary, whether he likes it or not.

To provide you with a summary of my own: When the full document was secret, his document was a summary; Once the full text was released and everyone could compare, it suddenly wasn’t a summary. Funny, that.

We know that the Blair government likes massaging the facts a little, but here he’s on record as directly contradicting himself. He’s absolutely doubtlessly proven as lying. Yet, far from resigning, he hasn’t even been sent out into the frenzied world of the media to apologise, or even clarify his comments. And all of this from a government which promised to be ‘whiter than white’.

If we were observing a developing nation with a government that was lying about the process of deciding about launching an internationally condemned war, not only would we have a few nasty things to say about said government, but there would be those in our government who would want military action taken against it. And yet when it’s people in their own government doing it, they don’t seem to mind quite as much. Talk about double-standards.

Since Mr Blair feels that HE Funding is in crisis, can anybody tell me why funding should not be directed away from the following degrees (seen in today’s Indy UCAS Extra supplement), and towards degrees which directly lead to essential public service provision: Knowledge representation; Ornamental fish; Tree protection; Vibration. Why is taxpayers money being directed towards people who want to have a degree in ornametal fish, of all things? I’ve tried to find more about this particular degree, but Manchester Metropolitan University appear to have chosen not to list it in their online prospectus. So if there is any value, they’re not allowing me to see it.

The Tories essentially want to return to the leader selection process they had before Iain Duncan Smith was elected. Actually, it’s not a bad idea, and the original changes were a bit silly. But the changes do give less point to being a party member, so expect to see lots of concessions to get the party at large on-side. And expect some political flack for going back in time – even though it seems a good thing for our political leaders to recognise, admit, and correct their mistakes.

Well, it had to happen some time. Despite the rather dodgy scanning (why can’t I find a cover shot when I want one?), the zoomed version clearly shows that I was featured on the front page of today’s Independent for supporting their voting reform campaign, which I mentioned here back on Thursday.

Over 4000 people have already signed their petition, and I strongly encourage you to do the same. If only to get them to accept that Labour won the election, and get back to reporting real news.

Today, The Indy have officially launched their ‘Campaign for Democracy’. Whilst I’m not wild about the name of the campaign, and I’m a little bored of their continual front pages and leaders about the story, I am in general agreement that this country is in need of some form of electoral reform, and would encourage you to sign their petition. Even if it only stimulates debate about which direction our voting system should be taking, then it will have been worth the effort. So give it a click, and fill in the form.

Ms Hewitt’s spell of virtual insanity continues, with her now announcing that she wants to make those who spread MRSA criminals:

Private cleaning contractors, managers and even visitors could face criminal liability for spreading the hospital superbug MRSA in the NHS.

Presumably, these people would then be forced to wear the uniforms proposed by her Crazy Cabinet colleague, Hazel Blears.

But, seriously, what does Ms Hewitt hope to acheive by making spreading MRSA a crime? To do so would mean that doctors would have to take every possible step to avoid litigation – is she seriously suggesting that all doctors should have a full surgical scrub before seeing every patient? That would more than triple the length of the average consultation, so I hope she’s got some money squirrelled away for lots of extra doctors. And what about the emergency situation? Are we all to completely scrub up before performing emergency procedures? A few more deaths might well be occuring if that’s expected.

MRSA will only be brought under control with sensible steps to educate medical staff and the public about prevention, and the necessary funding to keep hygeine standards up. If the funding had been available to put alcohol gel next to every bed five or six years ago – instead of only just getting round to it – then MRSA wouldn’t be such a big a problem now. Threatening people with litigation is simply absurd, and deeply unhelpful. And if she’s going to start slapping fines on cleaning companies, standards are unlikely to improve much but costs will sky-rocket. So I hope there’s lots of money available for the government to pay its own fines, too.

Update: Typo corrected

Reacting to the news that Andrew Marr is joining the other political resignees, The Independent today has something which closely resembles an obituary for him. He is a good political editor, but I’ve always preferred Mark Mardell’s reports to Marr’s. What is it with political reporters and names beginning with M?

Given that Mr Marr has chosen to leave, and that the BBC are likely to try and poach Mr Robinson from ITN, it seems probable that the three biggest political posts in British TV are going to be contested over the next few months. It’ll certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out.

And Marr should, perhaps, worry that his picture (above) reminds me very much of ‘Come Hither Bill’. Even the Independent says he has “the perfect face for radio”.