Finding solutions for Syria was amply debated  by the European Parliament. Protecting innocent lives and achieving peace for the sake of the whole region is the number one priority. EPP Group MEPs showed their concern about escalating violence, Russia's military intervention and the threat of expanding the conflict throughout the region. They stressed that the impact on Europe is critically important. MEPs called for more EU involvement at international level to put an end to the conflict, combat the so-called Islamic State and stop the migration flow.  The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Elmar Brok MEP, stressed that the current network of different political interests must be stopped: "Russia, the US and the EU must come together and talk about a common geopolitical strategy like they did in the past in the case of nuclear arms in Iran. The current proxy war, especially by Saudia Arabia and Iran but also Turkey, must come to an end. Regional cooperation should be in the interest of all of them. We need to find a common solution for the situation in Syria to finally achieve progress in the peace process and the migration crisis."

"The contribution of the countries of the region is key to preventing the further propagation of radicalisation", stressed Mariya Gabriel MEP, Vice-Chairwoman of the EPP Group responsible for relations with Mediterranean countries: "A clear and specific commitment of the countries of the region should be made to contribute to the improvement of coordination and to the opening of an exit window. The role of the EU is to work to make this commitment happen and play a balancing role in the redistribution process of influences in the region and to bring back both regional and great powers to the table for a peace process in Syria."  Russia's military intervention worries the EPP Group's Spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Cristian Preda MEP: "Russia has already shown us in the past its willingness to impose its vision of things by force. Its intervention in Syria is no different and makes the situation all the more fragile. By creating more pressure in Syria, Russia is doing nothing short of accentuating the refugee crisis. This is clearly against EU interests. We are deeply concerned about the recent incursions in Turkey's airspace. Turkey is our NATO partner."  The EPP Group Members believe that a lasting solution requires a political transition through a Syrian-led inclusive process with the support of the international community. All parties in the conflict should ensure the protection of the civilian population and honour their obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.  By August 2015, 12.2 million Syrians were in need of humanitarian assistance, according to the European Commission.

The situation in Syria, where Russia is openly supporting Bashar Al-Assad's regime against insurgents and violating the air space of Nato-member Turkey, should be addressed by EU leaders. The issue will already have been the main topic of discussion at Monday's meeting of foreign ministers. The summit agenda also includes a discussion on the Economic and Monetary Union, a few days before the European Commission publishes its proposals on micro-economic governance, competitiveness and the eurozone's social dimension.  Ahead of a more concrete discussion at the December summit, EU leaders will be informed about the technical discussions between the EU and the UK on reforms demanded by British prime minister David Cameron.

The EU Council will be preceded by the biannual tripartite social summit, which gathers EU leaders and business and trade union leaders to discuss the economic and social situation in the EU.

On Wednesday (14 October), EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos will visit Turkey, a week after president Erdogan's visit to Brussels and the publication of an EU Commission action plan.  Although the plan was agreed by Turkey before it was published, details still have to be discussed, in particular the use of €1 billion the Commission wants Turkey to use to deal with the refugee crisis and which Turkey wants to use as part of the accession process, that the money was originally earmarked for.

European justice needs a single European legal space, efficient justice needs simplified procedures.

The European Small Claims Procedure, in use since 2009, is a simplified procedure, based on standard forms, for recovering money owed by someone in another EU country.  New rules approved by Parliament today would broaden the use of the procedure, whilst safeguarding the procedural rights of citizens, by raising the threshold for claims covered by the cross-border disputes procedure from 2000 Euro to 5000. Up to now, the procedure was available only for cases with a value of up to 2000 Euro.  The proposed changes would make the procedure available for more cases, cut court fees and encourage the use of electronic communications, such as videoconferencing, and means for distance payments.  The European Parliament’s vote benefits EU citizens by providing simplified procedures for cross-border dispute resolution. National barriers will no longer be an insurmountable obstacle in judicial matters for individuals, nor, in particular, for SMEs. Electronic communication tools will facilitate the process for those involved.  "Good faith in the execution of civil and commercial contracts will be more vigorously protected and legal security will be guaranteed for the commercial circuit," said Daniel Buda MEP, the EPP Group's spokesperson on the issue.

Private industry was in a rage while privacy groups were elated on Tuesday over a new ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) affirming European citizens’ right to privacy from American tech companies.  On Tuesday, the European court ruled in favor of Max Schrems, an Austrian graduate student who asked that EU’s data protection commissioner bar Facebook from transmitting his personal data to the US on the grounds that many tech firms had cooperated with the National Security Agency. Transmission of personal data had previously been covered by a “safe harbor” agreement between Europe and the US that allowed tech firms to share the data with explicit consent from their customers. Businesses that operate in Europe must now make sure they are compliant with the EU’s own laws before they subject their customers’ personal information to laxer restrictions in the US, the court said.  The advertising industry was not pleased. “Today’s decision by the European Court of Justice jeopardizes thousands of businesses across the Atlantic,” said Mike Zaneis, executive vice-president of public policy and general counsel for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, who called the overturned provision “an efficient means to comply with EU privacy law”. “The weakening of the Safe Harbor agreement limits European consumers’ access to valuable digital services and impedes trade and innovation,” said Zaneis. “We urge the US and EU to agree on new rules for the transatlantic transfer of data, taking into account the CJEU’s judgment.”

Britain is among a handful of shining lights in the global economy this year as the world sees the slowest period of growth since the depths of the financial crisis, according to the International Monetary Fund. The IMF edged up its forecast for UK growth in 2015 amid downgrades "across the board" for advanced and emerging economies. It said China's slowdown, falling commodity prices and an expected increase in US interest rates would all weigh on output.   "Britain is among a handful of shining lights in the global economy this year"  I think someone must be holding this shining light in your eyes. I'd recommend a read of the Whole of Government Accounts for 2013-14, and of course for 2014-15 when they finally come out.  Here's a quick extract from 2013-14 WGA for you. "Assets have increased by £39.8 billion (3.1%) from £1,297.5 billion in 2012-13 to £1,337.3 billion in 2013-14. Property, plant and equipment (PPE) increased by £15.8 billion due to increased assets under construction and new academies; financial assets increased by £17.6 billion due to increased loans and advances to banks (repos) and trade receivables increased by £10.2 billion due to increases in taxation due.  Liabilities have increased by £263.7 billion (9%) from £2,925.4 billion in 2012-13 to £3,189.1 billion in 2013-14. The key factors behind this increase were an increase in the pension liability of £130 billion (11.1%), followed by an increase in government borrowing of £99.9 billion (10%) and financial liabilities of £17.8 billion (3.8%)."  Assets up by 39.8bn and liabilities up by 263.7bn, that's a net worsening of position of 224bn or so in a single year. Then of course we have the private pension sector whose recognised deficits have increased, according to the PPF, by 320bn over the last two years, primarily thanks to emergency low rates. They are going to need to suck that money out of the wider economy over perhaps the next ten years, as indeed many major companies are already doing.  As to GDP, well we have 8.9% of our GDP being provided by imputed rents, the rent that you'd theoretically have to pay yourself if you didn't already own your property, though it generates no real additional economic activity. Another large chunk of nominal GDP growth come from importing 330,000 people a year that we make no provision in terms of infrastructure or services for, we simply degrade existing ones with the extra load. And the remainder? Well we borrow three or four times the actual organic GDP growth to support it.

I'm not sure we can afford things being this good much longer.

The Federal Reserve isn't owned by the United States government it's an international business cartel, a privately owned business that generates over 80 billion dollars a year. More money than any company in America. They say that their objective is to reduce inflation, however, the lower interest is, the more people end up going bankrupt after retirement. When you have more bankruptcy, the banks are required to borrow more money from the federal reserve, increasing their profit margin. It seems to only logical that our monetary system should be controlled by a government agency rather than a privately owned business whose prime objective is to make money, and has financial motivation to cause bankruptcy and financial collapse....Markets have been manipulated for thirty years by and for the insiders, creating the too big to fail banks. Data is manipulated by the insiders, the regulators and government to demonstrate that all is well-nothing to see here. The last decade has seen nil interest rates and successive rounds of Quantitave Easing in an attempt to avoid deflation. This policy has totally failed. This leaves only painful policy options going forward. Orthodox economics which ignores the effect of money and debt on economics prescribes minus interest rates and counterfeit currencies. People who understand macro economics have identified the effects of debt, and understand that creating more debt is not a solution. World Debt is at 285% of GDP. Much of it is worthless and will never be paid back-so the action has to be write it off. Starting now...We know rates can't go up by more than 1% due to the quantum of personal debt in existence and the thin layer of surplus cash available for consumption every month.  More than 1% rate rise will signal defaults spiking. Any rise in rate will signal a slowdown in lending which is correlated highly with growth. This is a debt trap. Any inflation and monetary policy has nowhere to go. This is why there is a hang-up on whether to raise rates by 0.25%. Inflation watchers on one side (hawks) and growth seekers (doves). Frankly it's not worth bothering with, as the economy is stagnant at the zero lower bound whilst we operate in an environment of low growth capitalism. To solve the conundrum debt needs to see material reduction to create surplus cash flow, or wages need to increase - neither of which appear on the economic horizon within market fundamentalism.  Radical solutions would be debt jubilee with new controls on bank creation of endogenous money, regulate bank business models, and control spending / consumption to maintain 2% inflation, or increase wages significantly (with investors/ equity taking the hit - a move away from the conception of financial control and shareholder value to a stakeholder model) and drive a demand side response to deliver 'real' economic growth, not zero sum games we see today in stocks and real estate.