By Chris Terelak

Like it or not, the tieless have inherited the earth. Look no further than Messrs Branson, Gates, Zuckerberg et al who prove you can be taken seriously and bank untold wealth in an open-necked shirt.

For all of us, not just G8 leaders and modern-day tycoons, a more relaxed style of dress suggests you're ready for an open dialogue, rather than stubbornly sticking to your guns. If you're after a win-win outcome, leaving your tie in the wardrobe ain't a bad place to start. So well done G8. The basic thinking seems correct, given that consensus is the goal.

However, the tieless business casual approach runs risks. What happens if everyone turns up in the same neutral colours and loose-fitting 'me too' jackets, shirts and trousers? Any gathering takes on a lifeless air, deprived of the oxygen of individuality. And being brutally honest, that's pretty much the way the G8 gathering looks to a clothes-conscious outsider. Whatever the diplomatic outcome, the Lough Erne summit

By Jane Fae

Something has changed in the field of child protection. There is a new mood abroad: a real determination by the political establishment to make a difference.

Over the last decade, debate about the internet has gradually shifted from 'wild west' metaphors, according to which policymakers could do little about this lawless new virtual space, to general agreement that it is not that different and should be regulated.

The debate now is what sort of something could or should be done.  Criminal material – especially material that is based on the exploitation and abuse of children – is being dealt with on a daily basis by the Internet Watch Foundation (as watchdog) and CEOP (as police enforcement agency).  According to veteran campaigner John Carr, of the UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, it is a positive thing that the police are finally admitting that they need more resource.

This leaves another difficult issue: how to protect children from exposure to

By @MarlaMillaMia

It is June 16th 2013. It has been 19 days since the Gezi resistance started. Yesterday evening, after giving a speech in Ankara, prime minister Recep Erdogan made a threat.

"If by tomorrow these people won't empty the Gezi Park, our police forces will find a way to empty and secure the park," he said.

At exactly 9pm, which is usually the time when people hit pans and spoons in order to show their support with the protestors, a strategic manoeuvre took place by police near Gezi Park. It was unexpected and brutal. There were many families, women and children visiting the park at that point. From Facebook and Twitter posts, my friends and I were getting hundreds of horrifying messages every second, about people being injured and tents being torn down. On Reuters we watched in shock as the live stream showed police entering the park area with large vehicles, using water cannons and tear gas against demonstrators.

People were separated from their kids. Police even hit the

By Crin Antonescu

When I started my political journey 20 years ago the EU represented a more democratic and prosperous future and a return to the European family. These values are why I entered politics. Little did I expect that today Romanians would be under threat of being relegated to second class EU citizenship.

As a historian I am only too aware that during times of economic crisis people, scared about their precarious situation, are happy to be given a scapegoat for their predicament. There have always been populist politicians happy to take advantage of people's fears for electoral gain. I am saddened that in 21st Century Europe, and in particular in the UK, that this is still the case.

In 2007, when Romania joined the EU, we reluctantly agreed to postpone the application of the fourth fundamental freedom of the EU – the right to live, work and learn anywhere in the EU - until 2014. We are therefore frustrated and offended that some now suggest that these restrictions should be

Sexual shenanigans are never far from the surface in Westminster. If at times it feels like our politicians just can't help but jump into bed with someone they shouldn't, a report out today suggests there's a reason for that.

The Liberal Democrats' "haphazard" way of doing things has a lot to answer for in explaining exactly how allegations of sexual harassment dating back six years were not dealt with properly.

I briefly worked for the party in 2005 - a failed dalliance with active partisanship which established, beyond any doubt, I was best suited to deal with politics from the sidelines. During this time I was warned about the perils of spending too much time with this MP or that MP. My colleagues were obsessed with sex. The Westminster village is an inbred place; as at university, not much goes on before everyone else knows about it.

Westminster is not like university, though. Today's independent report from Helena Morrissey, the chief executive of Newton Investments, goes out of

Photo: Parliament/Catherine BebbingtonFilibusters are usually doomed attempts at derailing reform by desperate politicians. Not so the wrecking speeches expected when the EU referendum bill arrives in the Commons next month: for once, it's the saboteurs who have the upper hand.

The first big test for private members' bills is at second reading, when 100 MPs are required to back the legislation. Any less and the 'quora' is not judged to have been met. This is often a problem because MPs habitually return to their constituencies on Fridays. Persuading them to miss a romantic meal with the wife, or even just the weekly surgery, can be challenging if the issue is an obscure one. Wharton will not have that problem. The eurosceptic wing of the Tory party (that's a big wing) will be out in force.

The filibustering opportunity comes a little later in the process, once the bill has worked its way through the public bill committee stage and returns to the Commons chamber. This is the best opportunity for Labour troublemakers to try

Sometime before 2011, the UK government was given access to Prism, a US system tracking people's online activity. In one year it compiled 197 intelligence dossiers on the back of it.

We know very little else. GCHQ may have simply provided the US with information based on the system or been given tip offs based on what was discovered there. That would be relatively safe legal territory for British intelligence.

Or it may have made requests itself, which would break the law and amount to a covert creation of a snoopers' charter based in a foreign state. Or it could have been given access to the blanket coverage of the system, which is capable of scanning emails, photographs and social media messages.

We won't know more until William Hague faces the Commons later and probably we won't even know much more after that. Hague is able to rely on the innate secrecy of intelligence arrangements.

And therein lies the problem. The very same people who told us Prism does not exist are now telling

Tim Yeo has two motives when it comes to his energy work: saving the world and personal gain.

This is not a damning comment or even a subjective one. It is a statement of fact. Yeo is, as he told Politics.co.uk last week, "a robust advocate for the need for action to address climate change". His job as chair of the Commons' energy and climate change committee makes him one of the most influential policy influencers in the country on energy and climate change.

He is also very well paid by private companies which are directly interested in the area of policy his parliamentary work focuses on. Take the 2012/13 financial year, for example.

Between May 2012 and May 2013 he earned £43,400 from AFC Energy, a company developing alkaline fuel cell technology, for his role chairing its board. His remuneration to date has notched up 2.5 million share options.

Yeo is also chairman of TMO Renewables, "a company developing and supplying technology for second generation biofuels". This earned him