Darren Ennis

France's decisive goal against Ireland in their World Cup play-off will only add further weight to the case for using a video ref, or extra goal-line officials, at least in the biggest matches.

The controversial extra-time strike from William Gallas took France through to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, while leaving the Irish barely able to contain a sense of frustration and injustice.

It was goal which should not have stood, as TV pictures made plain. French captain Thierry Henry clearly handled the ball, not once, but twice before crossing for Gallas to score from close range.

Once again, fans are wondering how a mistake of such magnitude, in such a high-stakes game,  could be allowed to happen.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter and UEFA chief Michel Platini both disagree with the use of video referees but their case would have been a hard one to make in front of Irish fans on Wednesday. Soccer's top officials say a video referee will only slow down the game. True enough, but would it not be better to stop the game and get the right decision rather than continue and see a faulty decision stand?

Platini, for his part, has managed to push through the idea of an extra official behind both goals with an eye on spotting such infringements. Currently the idea is being piloted in UEFA's second-tier Europa League, but it may now be time to take the brave decision to introduce this across the board.

If we see another "Hand of God" moment in South Africa, perhaps one that decides the final, will football's reputation survive it?

TO: France's team captain Thierry Henry reacts in their World Cup qualifying playoff return leg match against Ireland at the Stade de France stadium in Saint Denis near Paris November 18, 2009. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

The fact that European Union leaders have not yet reached a consensus on who should become president of the 27-nation bloc, with time running out before a summit on who should  be given the post, has compounded my belief that they should scrap the idea all together.

During the horse-trading of the past few weeks I have found myself asking the question: why do we need an EU president, particularly since the bloc has at least one, if not two, capable presidents already.

Having covered the EU in some depth for the past six years and travelled with EU delegations to many events, notably with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, I have found the system seems to work well for the most part. 

The post of EU president was created to give Brussels more clout and respect in world affairs. The person was supposed to be instantly recognisable and charismatic to boost dwindling public confidence which hit rock bottom when French and Dutch voters rejected the EU's draft constitution in 2005.

A 'No' vote in Ireland in 2008 on the Lisbon reform treaty that replaced the constitution also damaged the EU's international standing. 

A U-turn by Irish voters in October showed there is less of a need for a superstar to lead Europe because, as an entity -- driven by a strong euro currency -- the EU has, I believe, emerged from the economic crisis in good shape from a public relations perspective.
Belgium's little-known Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy has emerged as the latest frontrunner, or compromise candidate.  A straw poll of 10 people around the EU district in Brussels showed three knew he was Belgium's leader, two said he was a Belgian politician, and five were
completely unaware of him. 

So, if at least half of this mix of EU officials, lobbyists and lawyers haven't a clue who he is, what hope is there for the man or woman in Dublin, Warsaw or Prague ?

The previous favourite and long-time front-runner was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The fact that he is on first-name terms with the world's leaders and glitterati were his selling points. 

I have seen U.S. President Barack Obama change direction when out strolling during a G8 meeting to speak to his "friend Jose".  Barroso is on first-name terms with just about all the world's leaders after five years as Commission president.

If the EU wants a bit of showbiz, while in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, the former Portuguese Prime Minister was invited backstage by singer Bono at a sell-out concert by the Irish rock band U2. 

After the concert, Barroso went to an after-show party with the cream of stage, screen, music and fashion hosted by Rupert Murdoch for charity. He was seen holding the full attention of the Eurosceptical media mogul.

Under the current system, each member state holds the EU presidency for six months in turn. Giving a president a 2-1/2 year role is intended to give unrivalled continuity and make the EU more effective.

After working with more than 10 presidencies, I have found that some countries have strong presidencies and others do not -- the problem is more with the country at the helm than with the system. 

The current Swedish presidency has been widely praised as pro-active, efficient, conciliatory, transparent and inclusive of all member states, taking into account all countries' views and not just those of Paris, Berlin and London.

If Stockholm and Barroso are seen to work smoothly together, do we need to further complicate matters and add yet another European president ?

Photos: Top (clockwise from left): Leading contenders for EU President - Belgian PM Herman Van Rompuy, former British PM Tony Blair, Luxembourg PM Jean Claude Juncker, former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende

Middle: Former British PM Tony Blair in the fast lane

Bottom: U2 singer and leading global aid campaigner Bono with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in Brussels

Most of the French fans who made up over half of my red-eye flight back to Brussels from Dublin on Sunday concurred that "Le Bleus" were lucky to emerge from the Croke Park cauldron around eight hours earlier with a 1-0 victory over Ireland in the first leg of their World Cup playoff.

"The result was fantastic, but the performance was not so good," Jean, from Lille, said after the dust had settled on the win over Giovanni Trapattoni's team, thanks to a 73rd minute deflected goal from Nicolas Anelka.

"We were lucky to score and we didn't show any flair. The Irish will be disappointed not to have got a draw," said Marie, sporting a red, white and blue wig.

"If we don't play better on Wednesday, Ireland will definitely score and it will be difficult for us."

Those views had perhaps been shared by an uncomfortable-looking France coach Ray Domenech, who failed to heap any praise on his side and threatened to walk out of the post-match news conference if he was questioned further over a reported pre-match spat with captain Thierry Henry.

French media reported the Barcelona striker was unhappy Domenech had not picked his former Arsenal team mate Patrick Vieira -- now at Inter Milan -- in his squad for the playoff.

Henry didn't look to be as involved as he can be, failing to chase down a number of half chances, though the the Irish defence, marshalled brilliantly by Aston Villa's Richard Dunne, deserves a bit of credit for that.

On the flip side for the French, Anelka showed a hunger and willingness to try to unlock a game which was cat and mouse for the most part and lacked any outstanding or memorable periods of play from either side.

Ireland for their part stuck to wily Trapattoni's game plan by closing down France at every opportunity. It was reminiscent of the glory days when Ireland under Jack Charlton used to play by the motto "Put them under pressure".

The home side also created their own opportunities to score and went close on a number of occasions. John O'Shea in the first half and Glenn Whelan late in the game both scuffed their chance for Irish immortality.

On the evidence of the first leg encounter, the French fans on board my flight on Sunday agreed that if Ireland can get an early goal, turn the impatient home support against their team, and show more confidence in attack, Trapattoni has a real chance of emulating Charlton in Paris and steering the Boys in Green to South Africa next June.

PHOTO: France's Nicolas Anelka celebrates scoring during the 2010 World Cup play off qualifying soccer match against Ireland at Croke Park Stadium in Dublin November 14, 2009. REUTERS/Cathal McNaughton

Giovanni Trapattoni may have cause to regret his decision to leave Sunderland playmaker Andy Reid out in the cold when Ireland face France on Saturday and next Wednesday in their two-legged World Cup play-off.

Reid has been in sparkling form for his club this season in the Premier League, notching some fantastic goals, notably from free-kicks -- an area Ireland need to improve on with the exception of Glenn Whelan's thunderbolts from long range.

He has a range of passing that can unlock the best defences in the world and Ireland will need somebody with that capability against the more-fancied French at Croke Park and Stade de France over the next week.

But the Dubliner has been overlooked by Trapattoni ever since he fell out with the wily, no-nonsense Italian a year ago in the team's hotel bar in the German city of Wiesbaden after Ireland's qualifier with Georgia.

Reid has apologised profusely for failing to go to bed before a 2am curfew and, unlike, say, Manchester City's Stephen Ireland, he has reiterated on many occasions his commitment to play for his country.

But while Trapattoni and his backroom team continue to court Ireland, Reid remains in exile. Of course with a lack of creativity in Ireland's central midfield, Ireland would be a welcome addition, but surely his absence only reinforces the need for Reid's recall?

The former Tottenham player has knuckled down since his move to the north east of England, lost lots of weight, looks fitter than ever, and has become one of the most improved players in the best league in the world.

Is it time Trapattoni swallowed his pride?

PHOTO: France team soccer coach Raymond Domenech (R) and captain Thierry Henry hold a news conference upon their arrival in Dublin November 13, 2009. REUTERS/Charles Platiau

If this morning's flight from Brussels to Dublin is an indication of how Irish people will vote in Friday's referendum on the EU's Lisbon reform treaty, then the result will be an emphatic Yes on Saturday afternoon when the final results are expected to be known.

The majority of the Aer Lingus flight packed with Irish diaspora from Brussels - some of who hold office in the EU capital - seemed set to vote Yes to the Lisbon treaty, which aims to give the 27-nation bloc greater sway in world affairs and streamline its decision-making.

Irish MEP (member of the European Parliament) Liam Aylward said he was "quietly confident" of a positive vote in favour for the treaty.

The Fianna Fail politician from Ireland's eastern region was accompanied on the flight by his British Liberal colleague Andrew Duff, who was among the lawmakers who helped shape the new Lisbon treaty after French and Dutch voters rejected the EU's doomed constitution in 2005.

"I am travelling to Dublin because I want to hear from the people themselves, whether they vote Yes or they vote No. I am not going to make any predictions," Duff said.

Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty in a referendum in June 2008, plunging the bloc into crisis and halting its expansion.

Polls ahead of Friday's plebiscite pointed towards a victory for the Yes camp this time around after the Irish government received guarantees from its EU partners in the sensitive areas of military neutrality, taxation, abortion and the right to retain an Irish commissioner in Brussels.

Many of those on board the flight are employed by the European Commission, European Parliament or Ireland's representation to the EU and so had personal reasons for making the trip to the Emerald Isle to vote.

"My career could take a turn for the worst this weekend if we don't vote Yes," a Commission official said, but asked not to be named.

"How could you apply for a promotion, take home a decent salary from the EU after voting No. It would be really embarrassing and hypocritical."

But not all had ulterior motives for voting Yes.

Carol McGinley, who runs the Brussels office for Ireland's main dairy organisation, and Anne-Marie McCourt, assistant to independent MEP Marian Harkin, both faced at least a three-hour journey by bus on landing in Dublin, before casting their vote in their respective constituencies.

"I just had to vote. Every vote counts. I felt a real duty to vote, especially after last time," Carol said referring to Ireland's first referendum on the treaty in June 2008 which resulted in victory for the No camp.

Even the few nay-sayers I could find among the 130-plus on board the flight, seemed resigned to defeat.

"I am a staunch opposer of the treaty, but it looks like the tide is against us," said Brian Carty, who works for Sinn Fein -- the only mainstream political party opposing the treaty.

"You can never say never, but it looks like a Yes vote this time around."

(Picture: A man adjusts an Irish flag as it flies next to a European Union flag near the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels. Reuters/Francois Lenoir.)

 Pat Cox, Joseph Borrell, Hans-Gert Poettering and now Jerzy Buzek. What do they have in common ? For those outside the EU bubble in Brussels, Polish conservative Buzek was elected on Tuesday as the new president of the European Parliament, following in the footsteps of the others mentioned above.
    But does anyone really care ?
 I asked on Facebook if anyone could name the previous two presidents and from those of my friends who do not work in any of the European Union institutions, I received numerous responses ranging from Barack Obama to Seamus & Sheila McSpud.

 In his first media interview after taking over as the head of the EU's directly elected assembly in 2007, Poettering told me he was going to make the European Parliament one of the best-known legislatures in the world.

 Poettering's closeness to German Chancellor Angela Merkel was supposed to give him a greater voice and increase parliament's influence over EU legislation, notably on climate change and financial regulation.

 But even with greater media coverage of the EU's co-legislature, notably of the committees responsible for these important areas of competence, June's election still resulted in a record-low turnout and further diluted public opinion of the parliament.

So, can former Polish Prime Minister Buzek -- the first assembly president from a former Soviet bloc country -- succeed where his predecessors failed and put the European Parliament on the international map ? I doubt it.

Last year, when G8 leaders agreed a "vision" of halving world greenhouse gases by 2050 at a summit in Tokyo, Japan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel looked around the table and wondered aloud if any of them would still be around to ensure the plan worked -- or held to account if it didn't.

"Probably only Dmitry", one of the leaders said, referring to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, according to a G8 source. At the time, Medvedev was 42 and will be 84 in 2050.

At this year's G8 summit, the discussion came up again when the leaders agreed other distant targets, including an 80 percent reduction in emissions by developed nations by 2050. (Critics said they should have focused more on 2020 goals that are most relevant to a new U.N. climate treaty due in December.)

"We probably have a second person -- Barack will still be here," one of the leaders said of U.S. President Barack Obama, who is now 47 and took over from former President George W. Bush in January.

But then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the oldest of the leaders at 72, piped up:

"I will still be here. Look at me -- I don't look old . That's why I have so many problems with the ladies."

(Picture: from L-R: Japan's Prime Minister Taro Aso, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President Barack Obama, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev react as they pose for a group photograph at the G8 summit in L'Aquila July 8, 2009. Leaders from the Group of Eight major industrial nations and the main developing economies will hold talks from July 8-10. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer)

As people across the European Union vote in a European
Parliament election, is it perhaps time to consider making voting in each country compulsory by law?

The build-up to the election has been dominated by talk of voter apathy and how low the turnout will be at the polls. This has drowned out discussion of policies and how to bring about changes in government.

As an Irishman living in Belgium,  I must vote in the elections or face a hefty
fine. My first response to this five years ago was: How dare they
tell me what to do ? But on further reflection, it may make sense.

It is annoying to listen to people who haven't voted for
years trying to put the world to rights by complaining about
their government or engaging in a bit of "Euro bashing".
The only way they can make a difference is to vote.

Voting is compulsory on the election in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece
and Luxembourg.

Pollsters say a low turnout favours the extreme left and
far-right parties because they can mobilise their voters while 
mainstream voters are more likely to stay at home. 

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso also made
the point that there is another issue at stake -- that most
countries in Europe have experienced bloodshed without which
people may never have had the right to vote in some countries. He
appealed to voters not to scorn this chance to vote.

Forget about the 39th game. What about English Premier League playoffs to spice up the world's most popular league and stop it becoming a boring four-horse race?
 
After watching the recent playoffs in the English lower leagues and witnessing the excitement surrounding the recent two-legged title decider in Belgium where I ply my trade, I reckon playoffs are the way forward for the top leagues, if not now, then possibly in the future.
 
Everybody loves the cup tie atmosphere, a nail-biting finale and a do or die decider.
 
But with the growth of the Premier League and top divisions in other countries, such as Spain and Italy, along with the popularity of the UEFA Champions League, the exhilaration of soccer seems to be dwindling.
 
Soccer's governing bodies have admitted there is a real threat that the beautiful game is becoming boring.
 
My solution for the Premier League would be to have a four-team playoff for the title similar to that used in the Netherlands which proved successful.
 
This would prevent boredom should Manchester United run away with the title with a few games still to go. At the same time finishing fourth would have an added incentive for those teams battling to break into that coveted Champions League spot.
 
Breaking into the top four is hard enough for the likes of Everton or Aston Villa, but what about getting there and having a real chance of winning the title?
 
The ecstasy and heartbreak of Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sunderland and Hull on the final day shows a playoff at the bottom similar to those in the lower divisions is also more exciting than watching a club limp out of the top division weeks before the end of the season.

PHOTO: Burnley players celebrate after their English Championship playoff final victory over Sheffield United at Wembley Stadium in London May 25, 2009. REUTERS/Nigel Roddis

Yet again I find myself asking the question: why did UEFA award Euro 2012 to Poland and Ukraine?

Questions marks have again been raised over the decision by European soccer's governing body after it was yet again forced to set another deadline for Ukraine to meet is criteria for a number of its venues.

So has anything changed since I wrote a blog from the UEFA crunch meeting in Bordeaux last September when both countries were given a final warning over their lacklustre preparations for European soccer's top event?

Poland seems to have made steady progress on its stadiums at least but UEFA sources say the related infastructure such as transport links and accommodation are still questionable.

Ukraine, reeling from the impact of the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, is still way behind and has been warned they risk losing the right to stage the final in Kiev if they don't get their act together before November 30.

How many warnings does a country need before delivering upon its promises? Does UEFA have a plan B if the Kiev government fails to meet the deadline?

Or as some cynical analysts suggest, is this a neat exit strategy for Ukraine? It has been one of the countries hardest hit by the global economic slump, having had to ask for a huge loan from the International Monetary Fund.

Some commentators say if UEFA takes away the final or there is a major imbalance between the number of games played in Ukraine compared to neighbouring Poland, Kiev may use it as an excuse to withdraw and save face by blaming the governing body and its co-host.

Ukrainian officials have played down any worries and say they expect four cities from each nation to host matches.

Whatever happens -- even if Ukraine and Poland manage to satisfy UEFA in November -- the decision to allow the two to stage the event will haunt the governig body and its president Michel Platini for some time to come.

PHOTO: UEFA President Michel Platini speaks to the media during a news conference in Warsaw April 16, 2009. REUTERS/Peter Andrews