This time I am in Berlin to report on the anniversary of the fall of the Wall, and I've been revisiting the scene of some of the events I witnessed in 1989.

The following account is based on notes I made at the time:

On the evening of 9 November 1989, I was at the back of a hall in East Berlin when Guenther Schabowski, a party official, used these words: "If you want to go, you are free to leave."

It was difficult to know what he meant.

I returned to my hotel and mid-evening I heard loud voices. I picked out the word "Freiheit" - "Freedom" - shouted over and over again. On the street, people, couples, groups were tumbling out of apartment buildings. Many were young, their faces alive, daring to believe. We headed through the dimly-lit streets towards Checkpoint Charlie, one of the crossing points to West Berlin.

Suddenly, it seemed, we were no longer individuals but a crowd, drawn close by an unspoken hope. As we neared the checkpoint we slowed. From the West German side we could hear cheering, the sounds of a party, of celebration. In that moment, defined by a distant sound, some around me knew their world had changed and they embraced, their tears running on to the shoulders of friends.

Ahead of us were East German guards, edgy and uncertain, standing back in the shadows. Beyond them, on the other side of checkpoint Charlie was a bear, a dancing bear. Someone placed an East German border guard's cap on its head and the crowd laughed and drank from bottles.

Then a middle-aged couple walked past me towards the crossing and just kept walking. Two ordinary anonymous people. The crowd fell silent and watched this slow agonising walk into history. The guards did not stop them. They just checked out. On the West German side there was a roar and the couple were swallowed up in celebration. A man hugged me and we never exchanged a word.

As we waited, I noticed army trucks arriving and border guards began moving to our right and left. They were clearly visible, back-lit by an orange light. We all feared that shooting might start and we looked for cover, but the guards stood around as if waiting for orders. Then some young men jumped off the wall into East Berlin and walked towards the police lines where we were standing. They were smiling and offered their hands to the police, who stood there bewildered. And in those gestures of hesitation, of uncertainty, the authority of the German Democratic Republic, with its feared secret police, the Stasi, crumbled.

It is the curse of authoritarian regimes that at the moment they reform themselves and relax their grip they are at their most vulnerable. The crowd around us sensed it and was no longer afraid. A couple with a sparkler walked towards the wall, shrugging off police requests to stay back, but the request had been polite, pleading, and it only encouraged others to follow. They showed no hostility towards the police, they just humiliated them.

The police held their lines but the people streamed through. They were pulled up on to the wall and stood there looking down on two sides of a divided city. A man was passed a pickaxe and began chipping pieces off the wall. Surely now, I thought, force would be used, but it was already too late. The crowd had tasted freedom and without terrible bloodshed it could not be taken from them. We stayed there most of the night, filming a revolution, savouring the moments when every stranger was a friend and anything seemed possible.

After two nights of successfully guiding people through from east to west, the tunnel was discovered by the Stasi - the feared East German secret police - who raided the safe house which led to the entrance of the tunnel.

Armed with Kalashnikovs, guards chased the tunnellers back down into the hole, where they fled to the safety of West Germany.

One of Joachim Neumann's friends shot back at the guards, and for years believed the official GDR (East German) statement that his actions had killed a border guard. This led to them writing a letter of apology to the mother of the guard, who was made into a propaganda symbol by the GDR.

However in the 1990s, a journalist went through the declassified Stasi files and discovered that the guard had in fact been killed accidentally by a colleague. The tunnellers had never been guilty after all.

His words were scathing and undiplomatic in tone. He told The Guardian the Conservatives had "castrated" their influence in Europe. As regards the negotiating style of William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, he said: "They have one line and they just repeat the line. It is a very bizarre sense of autism". He denounced David Cameron's plans to bring back some powers from Brussels to Britain as "pathetic".

But by this afternoon the French minister had a different take on all this. "Pathetic" in French means "sad", he told the BBC. "I meant I was saddened, we are saddened in France to see the debate going in more and more euro-sceptical, euro-hostile tones".

He said he didn't realise that the word "autistic" was so offensive in English and withdrew the remark. Apparently the word is commonly used in France and translates very badly into English.

So in the end the message was lost in translation. Earlier another French minister had opined that it would be very difficult working with the Conservatives. On the evidence of the past 24 hours that is self-evidently true.

He does not want his agenda or his party to be engulfed by Europe in a way that proved so destructive in the past.

If he had insisted on a referendum - despite the fact that the Lisbon Treaty had become law - he would have embarked on a gigantic battle with other European leaders. David Cameron does not want that. He knows first-hand how it almost paralysed John Major's government.

So, for me, the key line was this:

"We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament."

And in case his meaning was not fully understood, the Tory leader said there would be no "Euro bust-up".

This, then, will be a long legal struggle. It is a far cry from threatening to obstruct business unless Britain gets its way.

Some in his party wanted a more general referendum to strengthen the party's hand in negotiating with other European countries. David Cameron has dismissed that. As Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, observed earlier, it would only have the power of an opinion poll. It would also consume much of the government's energy.

David Cameron's aim is to negotiate an opt-out from social and employment legislation in certain areas and a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is very difficult to bring powers back to Westminster without treaty changes. And that is a tough road to go down. To change a treaty needs the calling of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). That can only be done if 14 countries want it.

After the eight-year struggle to deliver the Lisbon Treaty it may not be easy to find 14 willing countries. Once a conference starts any country can put on the agenda whatever concerns it. To agree treaty changes requires the signatures of all 27 countries.

This has the feel of the "long grass". The EU knows how to string out negotiations and, as David Cameron said today, his aim would be to bring back some powers within the lifetime of a parliament. Even that may be ambitious.

The promise of "never again" allowing a transfer of powers to the EU without the say of the British people is politically shrewd. "Never again" is an attractive slogan to place in election leaflets. In reality there are no plans for another big treaty like Lisbon. The EU is worn down by the struggle to reform and there is no appetite for further major changes.

The offer of a referendum on this issue sets a benchmark. The Conservatives have opened themselves up to demands for referendums on other contentious issues.

Overall, other European countries will be reassured that David Cameron is not looking for a fight. What the Tories are hoping is that through legislation they will prevent a seepage of powers to Europe.

There was no fanfare, no announcement beforehand. The euro-sceptic Czech president just went ahead and signed a treaty he dislikes intensely. Some had hoped he would hold out longer but his options had gone. He had won a concession to opt out from the charter of fundamental rights but in exchange he had agreed to sign. The last legal hurdle was overcome this morning when the Czech constitutional court ruled the treaty did not violate the Czech constitution.

So ends an eight-year journey. The treaty started life as a constitution but it was rejected by the French and Dutch. It was re-born as a treaty although it was largely the same document. It had been shorn of some references that implied Europe was growing closer to being a federal state.

The British goverment, who promised the people a vote, changed its mind. The treaty was described as a technical change that did not require a referendum. All the indications were that the British people wanted their say and most likely would have rejected the treaty.

The Irish were the last to vote a few weeks ago. They had earlier voted 'no' but fears about the economy persuaded them to change their minds.

Events will now move fast. There will be an emergency summit possibly next week to chose a President of the European Council and a High Representative for foreign affairs.
With the treaty signed Tony Blair will have to decide whether he is a candidate for President and whether he'll lobby Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the power brokers.
If he fails then speculation will re-surface that the current British foreign secretary David Miliband may get the foreign affairs post.

Britain's opposition Tories will now have to say whether they are committed to a referendum now the treaty has been signed. All the signs are that they'll back away from a vote but try and re-negotiate, to claim some powers back from Brussels
.

It only remains for the Czech President Vaclav Klaus to sign it. He does not like the Treaty but in recent days he has given every indication that he will put his pen to the document. Last week he told European leaders that he was satisfied with the opt-out he had won from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Czech President is travelling this week and the timing of the signing is uncertain but Europe expects the Treaty to be signed within days.

For Britain's opposition Tories this is their 'Europe' moment. They will have to clarify where they stand now that the Lisbon Treaty is set to become European law.

Until now they have given an 'ironclad' promise to hold a referendum on the Treaty if
any state had not ratified it. But the Tories have been delphic in their comments about what they would do if the Treaty had become law, taking cover behind the phrase 'they would not let matters rest.'

David Cameron has started laying the ground for a change of direction. Most probably he will abandon the idea of a referendum on the treaty. It would be difficult to poll the country on what by then would be European law. Instead the Tories may seek to reclaim some powers in areas like employment and social laws. That, they hope, would satisfy some euro-sceptics.

It will not satisfy all of them. Some want a referendum on the wider issue of Britain's involvement in the EU.

It is, however, a difficult calculation for the Tories. If they try and re-negotiate part of the Lisbon Treaty that would require the agreement of all 26 countries and any change would have to be attached to another treaty.

After eight years of discussion surrounding Lisbon and the constitution that preceded it, the Tories will encounter stiff resistance. Some may even regard such a move as a 'wrecking' manoeuvre.

Now it is always possible to be awkward in Europe, to strew obstacles around while demanding a re-negotiation. There are key discussions coming up on the budget where the British tax payer may be asked to pay more. But a full-scale row with the rest of Europe, as has been seen in the past, can be damaging, time-consuming and a distraction for a new government.

The greatest danger for David Cameron is that he re-ignites the arguments over Europe within his own party.

It was not just an American night, it was a global event. I met young Brits and Europeans who had made the journey to say they were there the night America changed. I got texts from far-flung places with just three words: "Yes we can".

On that night it was easy to dream, but looking back at my report I wrote this:

"Briefly, he (Obama) stood alone between the bullet-proof panels; a foretaste of the loneliness of power; the certainty that the burden of expectations will be impossible to meet. So history turns. The torch passed last night to a man of high ideals who will face daunting challenges from his very first day in the White House."

Europe had got the president it wanted. Earlier I had watched 200,000 people turn out for Obama in Berlin. He was only a candidate, not even the nominee. The crowd yearned for a Kennedy moment with a young politician full of energy and high-ideals.

Tomorrow in Washington there is a summit between the Obama administration and the European Union. German Chancellor Merkel will address both houses of congress.

The love affair with Obama was always one-sided. Europeans wanted Obama; he
was less certain what Europe offered him.

For some Europeans the Bush years had been brutal. There was the snide reference to "old Europe" when there was a reluctance to support the Iraq invasion. Some Americans wanted to take the "French" out of fries. And then there was the New York paper that replaced the faces of the French and German foreign ministers with that of weasels. A spineless Security Council was branded the "council of weasels". Europe felt marginalised as America rode off alone to settle scores and fashion the world to its own design.

Obama, however, made Europeans feel included once again. He offered the hand of partnership. He signed up to multilateralism. It was only 11 days after he came into office that the Nobel Committee nominated him for the peace prize.

But as Obama's first year unfolded, old difficulties began to re-emerge.

Europe liked the early commitment to close Guantanamo Bay, although it remains in business.

It applauded the decision of the Obama administration to re-engage with Iran although uncertainty remains to what the new policy will deliver and whether Iran will send its stockpiles of uranium out of the country.

In the Middle East, Europe had wanted Obama to throw his prestige behind
peace talks but progress remains glacial and the administration has said that talks should not hinge on freezing Israeli settlements. Many European countries would
prefer Washington to take a tougher line with the Israelis.

On climate change, Europe prided itself that it was leading the world to get a deal in Copenhagen. At breakfast last week I heard a senior European official say: "We urged President Obama to show leadership... and he promised to make an effort."
The Europeans have put some figures on the table as to the cost of fighting climate change but they have essentially fudged what they individually would stump up.
The reality is that in Washington climate change gets second billing to healthcare.
President Obama may not even travel to Copenhagen. One Member of the European Parliament, Joe Leinen, said: "The US is still looking inwards, while Europe is looking outwards." Old complaints are re-surfacing.

The key area of common interest is Afghanistan. After long being chided for unwillingness to commit forces the Europeans have over 30,000 troops in the country.
Yet Europe is essentially waiting on Obama to conclude his brain-storming sessions with his advisers. The fact remains that Europe has virtually no say in strategy.

A revealing analysis published today by the European Council on Foreign Relations goes straight to the point and asks whether Europe has wasted its Obama moment. It says that Europe got the President it wanted but Washington remains enormously frustrated with Europe to speak with clarity and conviction. "Washington is disappointed with Europe," it says, "and sees EU member states as infantile: responsibility shirking and attention."

The writers challenge Europe to develop their own strategy for Russia, for the Middle East, for Afghanistan if they want to be taken seriously.

And here's the dilemma. The European Union is focused on its new jobs, the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. To the apocryphal Henry Kissinger complaint that he did not know who to call in Europe, a senior official said last week that, in future, the call would be taken by the High Representative. But he or she can only reflect the views of the member states.

So there may be a new and popular president in the White House and Europe has not fallen out of affection with him but Obama, as presidents before him, finds Europe an uncertain partner. Whatever the institutional changes, Europe runs up against the old problem; the more they seek to speak with clarity, the more they risk diminishing the influence of the member states.

Early in the morning, over breakfast, I detected enormous frustration among some European leaders. "We must show leadership," said one. The irritation stemmed from the firmly held belief here that Europe has led the way in demanding binding targets.

So Europe had to set an example for the Chinese and the Americans, said a senior official, and that meant putting figures on the table. Some colleagues, said the same official, are already anticipating failure over Copenhagen.

Overnight the lawyers and those with specialised knowledge of climate issues toiled away and early today Gordon Brown claimed a breakthrough. He had been one of those most insistent at the dinner that to carry conviction you had to deal in numbers. The British Prime Minister thought European leaders had the makings of an excellent deal.

After 2020 the world would have to find 100 billion euros a year to help the poorer countries fight climate change. Between 15 and 40bn euros would have to come from global taxpayers. That figure was certainly vaguer than the British had wanted. Britain would have to contribute about a billion pounds a year. And what excited Gordon
Brown's team was a new commitment to fast-track some of this funding immediately.

But the key to these figures was that they were conditional on other countries chipping in with funding and for the developing world agreeing to cut their emissions.

As the morning wore on it was apparent that the "breakthrough" was less than had been stated.

Firstly, some countries - particularly Germany - did not want to set out what Europe would end up paying. They wanted to see what others were prepared to contribute. Secondly, Poland and other Eastern European countries objected to helping countries like Brazil which they considered wealthier. They also resisted any contribution being assessed on the basis of their emissions as opposed to their GDP. In the end they agreed to support Europe putting some figures on the table but the question of how much they would pay was referred to a committee.

It is an indication of just how hard it will be to get a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.

The consensus here was that agreeing some figures was a step forward. Many felt that the failure to state what Europe would pay was a missed opportunity. However some said that it would put pressure on the Americans to say what they would contribute. For as the senior European official said this morning "we have to create momentum".

At a time when there are such misgivings about what Copenhagen might achieve, any momentum may be judged a success.

He would not say who that person was. However, if the French and German leaders have opted for Tony Blair then his non-declared candidacy is very much alive.

Paris and Berlin have always been the key to selecting the first president under the Lisbon Treaty. But the French president added these words: "the first words to come out of the hat are not the ones finally chosen".

Sounds bad for Blair, but until we know the mystery name Tony Blair should not be counted out. But this has not been a good summit for him.

Then Gordon Brown went off to a press conference. Tony Blair would make an "excellent" candidate, an "excellent" President of the Council. The weight of the British government was being thrown behind the former Labour prime minister.

At one point Gordon Brown conceded that the job did not yet exist and Blair had not declared himself as a candidate. Someone then said to the prime minister that he wouldn't throw the whole credibility of the government behind this unless Blair wanted the post. The prime minister said he had spoken to his predecessor only this week.

But almost immediately Gordon Brown would have realised that in selling Blair he faces an uphill battle. The Spanish said they were no longer for the former British prime minister. The Socialist group of leaders indicated they wanted a politician from the left not as president but as the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

Then today new names began emerging. Certainly Blair - if he stands - will not be the only candidate.

Iraq remains an issue. I asked Gordon Brown what he would say to other leaders when they raised the question of Tony Blair's involvement in the war in Iraq. The prime minister said he would tell them that this job was about the future and not the past.

The key remains the French and the German leaders. They have not declared their hands. Certainly Nicolas Sarkozy was enthusiastic for Blair in the past, but the word coming out of Germany is that Angela Merkel is wary of Blair's flashy style.

None of this will be decided at the summit, but at dinner tonight it may become apparent what kind of president the majority of leaders back. Do they want someone who can get a hearing at the White House or do they want someone who will build consensus within the European Union?

Interestingly the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said that "you get a different conversation" when you ask the question "what sort of voice" does the EU want in the world.

At this stage opposition to Tony Blair seems, if anything, to be growing and if he stood he'd have a fight on his hands. He needs a big player to come out for him or he may decide this is a battle he can't win.

The main story will revolve around what can be gleaned about Tony Blair's chances to become the first President of the European Council. It is not on the official agenda, but will be discussed informally over dinner on Thursday night. We might learn whether the leaders favour a "charismatic" president or a "less high-profile" chairman. In bilateral meetings names will be market-tested. Some leaders will hold briefings and we may know more about Blair's chances. Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday night will hold a "fireside chat" with her national press and, of course, where she stands is critical to who will get the EU's big job.

The first session of the summit is devoted to climate change. What to look out for here is whether the EU agrees on a figure to help the developing world cope with the impact of global warming. Watch out for Poland. They say they can't afford to help the developing world when they are struggling to cut emissions in their own coal-based economy. The Germans, too, may prefer not to put a figure on the plan until they get to the Copenhagen summit in December. Plenty of room here for a row. Certainly if the summit fails to put a financial figure on its plans then it will be seen as another setback for Copenhagen.

President Klaus of the Czech Republic will figure in discussions. He is the one man holding out against signing the Lisbon Treaty . He wants an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to prevent property claims from Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after the war. He'll probably be offered the opt-out, but the European leaders will be wary and will want a cast-iron guarantee from Prague that a signature will follow.

Immigration will surface again. Countries like Greece will be hoping for more "burden-sharing" from other countries. With nearly 21 million unemployed across Europe few countries will be willing to take in more migrants.

Then there is the economy. Over eight million jobs are predicted to be lost in 2009. The leaders are likely to agree to retain the various stimulus packages until growth is more firmly established.

Way back, Europe decided it would be more effective if it had a full-time president rather than a rotating presidency every six months. Not everyone was sure about this. The idea was pushed most strongly by Britain and France. They wanted a big name who would be the face of Europe.

Even back then smaller countries were uneasy.They feared this new "big beast" could eclipse them. He might just call Sarkozy or Merkel direct, and cut them out. Still, the job was written into the Lisbon Treaty with the title "President of the European Council". The president will have very little actual power, but could have high visibility.

Those arguments over the job description have not been resolved and, until they are, Tony Blair will not be a candidate. If the job turns out to be chairing summits - or, as someone put, it an "arranger of furniture" then it's not for Tony Blair. He'll be a no-show.

If, on the other hand, European leaders want someone who will get a meeting at the White House rather than a handshake with Joe Biden, then Blair is the only name out there. So we don't have a candidate, but I am certain that Blair wants the job if he can play the world stage. If he didn't he could easily have ruled himself out.

So ,Tony Blair won't declare until he sees the job spec, but that hasn't stopped a campaign being run on his behalf. His campaign team turns out to be the British government. There will be the curious sight of Gordon Brown barnstorming for the man who kept him out of No 10 for so long.

At this week's European summit Gordon Brown will push Tony Blair. The issue of the president is not formally on the agenda at the summit but it will be discussed at dinner on Thursday night. The role of campaign manager looks as if it is being played by an old ally of Tony Blair, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband. He has used every opportunity to "sell" Blair. He wants a president who will stop traffic in Beijing. This is "no time for shy and retiring violets", he told me. Miliband's point is that the world is in danger of becoming a G2 - America and China. Europe needs a spokesman.

The "return of Blair", however, has sent a shock-wave through the British political system. The Tories are furious.

One said: "Imagine the headline next year: 'Prime Minister David Cameron welcomes President Blair to Downing Street'." So the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, is also on the campaign trail, telling the French and Germans that promoting Blair would be a "hostile act". David Cameron is siding with the small countries in wanting a low-key president, a chair of summits and no more. He certainly doesn't want an "all singing, all-dancing, all acting" President Blair. The Liberal Democrats are set to oppose a President Blair.

The "Blair presidency" has become a surrogate for all the old arguments over the war in Iraq. Some Labour MPs, who bitterly opposed the invasion, say Blair "would be wholly unsuitable for the job". Others, like Roger Liddle, who was an adviser to both Tony Blair and the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said the war shouldn't be an issue.

However, Tony Blair is attracting so much heat that some say it is damaging his chances. So one candidate has appeared for the job that is yet to be defined. Step forward Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, a champion of the voice of small countries. "If I were called on," he said modestly, "I would have no reason to refuse". Then he appeared to take a swipe at his non-declared rival. "Europe should be represented by someone whose main concern would be to serve it."

The race will probably only be settled at a special summit held after the Czech president signs the Lisbon Treaty. That will probably be in November.
The electorate is small: the 27 heads of government. It will be decided on qualified majority voting, so expect deals and horse-trading.
Much will turn on the views of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who just happen to be meeting later. It may revolve on how they see the future of Europe - but it may hinge, too, on power. Would a leader with a world-wide reputation detract from their own standing on the international stage?

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

There is a context to all this activity. The final signature on the Lisbon Treaty is expected soon and the focus is shifting to the two top jobs it will create: the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

Firstly - the role of President. The presumed favourite is Tony Blair. Gordon Brown came out today supporting his candidacy. Yesterday David Miliband said Europe needed a president who would stop the traffic in Beijing. Today, when I interviewed him, he said "this is a time when a strong European voice is needed more than ever. This is not a time for shy and retiring violets".

Later this week European leaders meeting in Brussels will begin discussing the two
jobs. They probably won't fill the posts, but they may define their powers. Europe is
divided over whether it wants a charismatic figure as president bestriding the globe or a business manager who chairs summits. If the latter, then Tony Blair will probably not put his name forward. David Miliband is firmly in the camp that says that Europe must have a big hitter to sit at the same table as the Americans and Chinese.

One of several potential hurdles is that Tony Blair will be the chief witness at the Chilcot inquiry into the war in Iraq. Today David Miliband dismissed that as a problem. "Tony Blair is a retired prime minister," he said. "He is not a threat to any party in this country."

It is not yet clear who Tony Blair has in his corner. Berlusconi certainly. Sarkozy blows hot and cold. Angela Merkel is the key and, as usual, she is difficult to read.
The word from Berlin is that she is uncertain about Blair but will not necessarily oppose him.

The second job is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. This is a kind of EU
foreign minister with a diplomatic staff. Today David Miliband called for a more
assertive European foreign policy. He said it was in the British interest. To be frightened of a more powerful European voice in the world was "blinkered, fatalistic and wrong". Britain, he said, should embrace it, shape it and lead it. Otherwise, he said, Britain's influence in the world would wane.

He said the choice for the UK was simple. "We can lead a strong European foreign policy or - lost in hubris, nostalgia or xenophobia - watch our influence in the world wane." That was clearly a reference to the Tories.

The problem for David Miliband's vision is this. The stronger a role he sees for the
so-called European foreign minister the more his opponents will argue that he is making the case that the British people should have been consulted on the Lisbon Treaty.

In my interview today I asked him who would be more powerful - the British Foreign Secretary or the European foreign minister. He insisted that key decisions would still be taken in London and that a strengthened European voice would not replace British foreign policy, but enhance it.

One other point. David Miliband clearly feels the climate change talks ahead of the Copenhagen summit in December are in difficulty.

David Miliband said today it was very important for Europe to have a strong figure, who when they land in Beijing and Moscow the "traffic stops"
for the motorcade. "It would be good for Britain and for Europe if Tony Blair became that candidate." However it is not clear whether Tony Blair would put himself forward until the job is more closely defined.

My understanding is that the former prime minister would not be interested in just chairing summits and seeking out consensus. Increasingly the presidency is developing into a split between the big countries and the smaller states. Britain wants a powerful big hitter as president, so does France, Italy and probably Spain.

Angela Merkel's position is not yet clear and much will rest on what she decides. But the smaller players like Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are set against a strong presidency. Other countries like Poland do not want to see their position weakened when it comes to their turn to hold the rotating presidency of the EU.

So the battle will sharpen. The main arguments against Tony Blair so far have been that Britain is not part of the Euro but expect more attention to move to the fact that he will be the main witness at the forthcoming Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. One of the key questions to be decided is whether the former prime minister abused power.

The Conservatives have been actively telling EU ambassadors that they object strongly to a Blair presidency. That may have the opposite effect to what they desire. Some EU countries see a Blair presidency as providing a counterpoint to a eurosceptic David Cameron government.

Now if Tony Blair stumbles then Britain will turn its eye to the job of High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The person will be vice president of the European Commission and will have a diplomatic service at their disposal. It is potentially a very powerful job. David Miliband will again speak about this role on Monday. It has led to speculation in Europe that he is interested in the role.

He said today that "No, I am not a candidate. I'm not available." That may not stem the growing interest in the British foreign secretary in European capitals.

The attention that British National Party leader Nick Griffin is currently receiving stems from the European elections. The BNP got nearly a million votes and ended up with two seats in the European parliament. He and Andrew Brons became MEPs. They have not, as yet, made any impact in Brussels, but perhaps that is not surprising as their aim is for Britain to withdraw from the EU.

Some people were surprised by the numbers who voted for a party which is regularly denounced as racist. There was a similar reaction in 2006 when the BNP won a clutch of council seats in Barking and Dagenham. I did a report on their campaign for the BBC's Ten O'Clock News. Initially I thought it would be difficult to find people who would openly admit on camera that they intended to vote for the far-right party. It was easier than I imagined.

At Dagenham Working Men's Club I found potential BNP voters, and some were willing to talk openly. Among then was a brick-layer, a trainee nurse and an electrician. I got them to look straight into the camera. They gave their names, their occupations and said they intended to vote for BNP. All were either former Labour voters or came from Labour-voting families. None of them knew much about the BNP beyond the fact that it was anti-immigration. They knew nothing about the history or the background of the party's leaders or activists.

The mood in the club was one of sullen resentment. The neighbourhood around them was changing rapidly. Their known world had gone. I remember that one of them had got hold of the Labour manifesto from 1997. There was only a brief reference to immigration but the man read out the words "every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception". They felt betrayed and voiceless. In their view Labour had not been straight and no-one had asked them whether they wanted a sharp rise in immigration.

Certainly in that club the bond between the white working class and Labour had been broken. They seemed isolated, adrift and in that mood voted for the BNP. They did not particularly like the party. Theirs was a protest vote, a cry to be heard.

Later the Labour MP for Dagenham Jon Cruddas criticised my report. He felt the publicity could benefit the BNP. In fact it had been one of his Labour colleagues, Margaret Hodge, who had drawn our attention to the area when she warned that the shortage of housing for white working class people was driving people into the arms of the BNP. In the event the BNP did well and now have 12 councillors in the area.

It was easy to show the BNP for what they really were. Their election literature did that.

Many of the people I met knew that the BNP was regarded as a racist party but it did not deter them from voting for the party. They did not care because they felt ignored and sidelined. I also recall a comment from a colleague. He said the white working class was probably the only section of society that could be openly abused. They could be called "trash" or "chavs"' and no one objected. What I took away from Barking and Dagenham was the need for the mainstream parties to re-connect to white working families.