Party members split over the future of Europe

LDV asked: Which of the following options would be your ideal future for the UK and the European Union?

46% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU and work towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
40% – The UK should remain a full member of the EU but reject working towards ever closer union, economically and politically.
10% – The UK should secure substantial renegotiation of its existing relationship with the EU but remain a full member.
3% – The UK should leave the EU altogether and instead negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU.
2% – Don’t know / No opinion

Though the Lib Dems are generally identified in the public’s minds as the most pro-European, it’s clear from our survey that party members’ views are more nuanced. Just under half, 46%, back ever closer political and economic union — but that leaves 53% arguing for a rejection of further integration between the UK and our European neighbours, including a minority who would like to see renegotiation or even the UK’s exit from the EU.

The results are broadly similar to when we last surveyed Lib Dem members in September, though with a small shift towards a more ‘eurosceptic’ position.

Almost three-quarters back new Eurozone rules

LDV asked: The Eurozone refers to the 17 of the 27 countries within the EU that use the Euro. The UK is not part of the Eurozone. In December, European leaders agreed new rules for the Eurozone which will mean that countries in the Eurozone will have to balance their budgets, there will be punishments for countries which run up deficits that are too large, and countries in the Eurozone will have their budgets monitored by the EU. Do you support or oppose these new rules?

73% – Support
15% – Oppose
12% – Don’t know / No opinion

Almost three-quarters of Lib Dem members we surveyed supported the new rule for the Eurozone countries, with just 15% opposed.

Cameron’s Euro ‘veto’ scores badly with Lib Dems…

How well or badly do you think David Cameron handled the negotiations on behalf of the UK at the European summit in December?

Very well – 2%
Well – 6%
Total well = 8%
Neither well nor badly – 8%
Badly 33%
Very badly 51%
Total badly = 84%
Don’t know / No opinion – 1%

Well the Prime Minister’s so-called ‘veto’ may have wowed the right-wing media in December, but it didn’t win him plaudits among Lib Dem members — a net 76% of those we surveyed felt Mr Cameron had handled the negotiations badly.

… And Nick Clegg’s handling of the ‘veto’ gets a mixed response

How well or badly do you think Nick Clegg handled the Liberal Democrat response to the European summit in December?

Very well – 9%
Well – 36%
Total well = 45%
Neither well nor badly – 23%
Badly – 21%
Very badly – 9%
Total badly = 30%
Don’t know / No opinion 2%

A bit of a mixed result for Nick Clegg, with fewer than half of the members in our survey believing he handled the Lib Dem response well. Here’s a sample of your comments:

Hard position. Difficult to see how he could improve. Not worth destroying the coalition over

He took too long to make his stance clear, and there was some ambiguity as to what his stance actually was. Eventually, he was clear and right

His rhetoric was very anti-Tory but the substance was more measured.

Nick took two incompatible positions within the course of about 48 hours – he should be careful to avoid repeating this feat again in future.

Although the initial inconsistency was wrong, he took the right line.

Response could have been better, subtle reading may indicate that Nick Clegg behaviour was consistent throughout but that’s not what it looked like.

Started off badly but then improved significantly

Nick managed to claw back some respectability and influence. I wish he’d been negotiating for us.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

On Monday, February  6^th, The Romanian Prime Minister resigned, following nation-wide protests. The BBC reported that “In a statement, Mr Boc, 45, said that in a time of crisis, his centrist government had not taken part in a popularity contest but had acted to save the country.”

Wonderful statement, and one that would have befitted a Prime Minister leaving his office! A pity, therefore, that it has not been uttered by the Romanian Prime Minister, but by President Basescu’s handmaid, by the person whose complete obedience towards his political mentor has turned the country on its head and has seriously endangered the Constitutional order.

In January, Romanians took to the streets to vent their anger at the Government, and in this they have received the full support of the Opposition parties. The Liberals  called their own rally on January 19^th, in which more than 20,000 people participated. Moreover, the Liberal MPs (25 Senators and 53 Deputies), joined by the Social-Democrat and Conservative MPs, have declared a Parliamentary boycott until the demands of the protesters are met.

The discontentment was not caused primarily by the economic decisions of the government, although these had certainly managed to exacerbate and not diminish the effects of the crisis. The salary cuts were the most drastic in Europe, 25%, and this made consumption plummet; the increased fiscal burden on SMEs drove them into bankruptcy, and the number of the unemployed soared; VAT was raised from 18% to 24%, a measure all the more absurd as it was to become effective within 72 hours from the moment of the announcement! While the economy was so badly hurt, the government was pumping money into the pockets of the big contributors to their electoral purse, by lavishing on them lucrative contracts for such strategic and productive investments as parks, skating rinks and football stadiums in villages still lacking running water and sewage.

No, the anger of the Romanians was not caused by poverty, as news agencies have announced, nor by the incompetence of the government. They can easily forgive these, because they have been exposed to both in the course of their long history.

It was caused by the unbearable feeling that they were being robbed of their own country.

It was caused by the arrogance of the ruling clique, who were demanding that the people accept the austerity measures, and appealed to the feeling of solidarity, while behind closed doors they funnelled public funds into their own companies by preferential contracts and fixed “public” bids.

It was caused by the sight of the Cabal around President Basescu, which made a mockery of the basic precepts of democracy. It was caused by Secret Services subservient to the President’s will, illegally intercepting and immorally leaking the correspondence of any political adversary (most recently, private conversations of former Prime Minister Adrian Nastase were published by that part of the press closest to the presidential administration, although, being evidence in an ongoing trial, these were supposed to remain solely at the disposal of the judge). It was caused by the obedient prosecutors who have been making it their duty to pursue any who oppose the will of the President. It was caused by a Government which has consistently bypassed normal parliamentary procedures by the forced adoption of no less than 14 pieces of legislation, crucial laws such as the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, or the Education Law! It was caused, finally, by the sight of a governing coalition which, deprived of popular support and with no hope at the upcoming elections decides not to step down, but to postpone elections, under the pretext that there are no funds available to organise such an expensive event.

The demands of the people who took to the streets in all major cities were similar – the resignation of President Basescu, the resignation of the Boc Government, replacing it with a caretaker, technocratic government and early elections.

The Boc Government has stepped down on Monday, but this is, in and of itself, irrelevant. The same day, the President has nominated another Prime Minister, the former chief of one of Romania’s many Secret Services. One lackey has been replaced with another. Political life in Romania will continue to be tense.

The first problem Somaliland confronts on the world stage is that people confuse it with lawless Somalia.  It is an immediate neighbour and shares Somali culture but is largely peaceful and enjoys a recent record of solid democratic progress.  So are its achievements in the troubled Horn of Africa lauded?  Not a bit of it, because neither Britain nor the European Union, nor the international community in general recognise its existence.

Yet in 2010 Somaliland, which was born out of British Somaliland (whereas Somalia owes its boundaries to the former Italian colony) passed one of the key tests of a democratic state. In a tightly contested election for the presidency, the incumbent but losing candidate handed over power without conflict or bloodshed. International observers testified to the fairness of the election process.

One of these observers was Gillian Gloyer, a committee member of LI in Scotland.  She told the LI AGM that voter registration had been a problem, not least because Somalis are vague about their exact date of birth. So it was decided that all potential voters would have their birthday marked as January 1.

The largely rural economy needs the stimulus of foreign investment. But an unrecognised country is not an attractive prospect. So, given the contrast between Somaliland and anarchic Somalia (not to mention a tiny third territory, Puntland, which is home to many of the region’s pirates). why does the international community leave the only bright light in diplomatic darkness? Britain’s official interests fall to our embassy far away in Addis Ababa.

Boundaries in Africa are often a reminder of arbitrary colonial map-drawing.  Yet the Africa Union does not want to add to its members’ problems by recognising breakaway territories.  Or that at least was the plausible position until South Sudan was allowed to spring into being as a way of resolving long-term conflict in Sudan. Surely peaceful Somaliland, after half a century of self-determination, qualifies for its place in the sun.

The country is not perfect. It is poor and socially conservative. It has had recent experience of tribal violence. Last month 22 journalists who protested against the closing down of a television station were briefly imprisoned. But its considerable achievements deserve recognition, not isolation. The British Government has heard the Somaliland case, but has not listened.  It probably won’t act unless the European Union as a whole does so.

Liberal Democrats instinctively sympathise with the Somaliland case. Pressure from within our Government coalition and especially though the Foreign Office would help make Europe pay heed. I hope Liberal International will promote the Somaliland’s case.

We know that we face a long and difficult road ahead. But our vision is for people to be treated fairly and able to speak freely in every country. We should never be comfortable with a world where journalists, lawyers and activists endure ill treatment for criticising their governments. This is a core part of what this coalition stands for, and we will continue to fight for justice and equality wherever and whenever we can.

You can read the article in full here.

* Caron Lindsay is Wednesday editor at Lib Dem Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Ahead of Monday’s summit of EU leaders, which is due to finalise “political agreement” on the fiscal compact treaty, the government signalled that it would not challenge a role for the European commission and, more sensitively, would also allow resort to the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg to enforce new debt ceilings and fines for fiscal miscreants in the eurozone. ..

Cameron is understood to have made it clear to José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, in a telephone call on Wednesday that Britain would no longer object to using the ECJ to enforce the new treaty. … Cameron’s concession marks a significant watering down of his previous position and represents a victory for Nick Clegg, who has been urging the prime minister to recover ground after wielding the veto. The deputy prime minister lobbied hard inside Whitehall for Cameron to drop his objections to the use of EU institutions to enforce the compact.

There’s good reason for Nick Clegg’s stance. The only way the UK would be able forcibly to prevent Eurozone countries from making use of the European court of justice would to challenge it in the courts. Legally there’s no guarantee such a challenge would work. And politically it would pit the UK against the vast majority of its neighbours who have signed-up to use the ECJ — not a smart move.

Mr Cameron has landed the UK in neither a winning nor an attractive position. But that is what happens when — as the Prime Minister did in December — you issue an ultimatum without laying the necessary groundwork, and then walk out of the negotiations before you can gain any concessions.

Of course, none of this may now matter to Mr Cameron. His ‘veto’, however unintentional, earned him rave reviews from his backbenchers and the right-wing media, and is credited with providing the Tories with the polling boost that has seen them overtake Labour, piling more pressure on the beleaguered Ed Miliband. That just a few weeks later the Prime Minister now backs down over technicalities such as the ECJ, which few will understand or care about, will probably matter little to the political mood music.

But the stark truth of the matter is that Mr Cameron’s cack-handed negotiating has delivered nothing of lasting significance for the UK.

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

The husband of a Euro MP at the centre of a furious “nepotism” row has bowed to pressure and decided not to take over her Yorkshire seat when she quits next week.

Stewart Arnold, husband of Hull-based Liberal Democrat MEP Diana Wallis, has informed officials he will not be taking over his wife’s post at the EU Parliament, despite being eligible to do so as the party’s second-choice candidate at the last Euro elections.

His announcement follows a week of mounting criticism at the possibility of a husband automatically taking over his wife’s seat. Fellow Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies quit as party whip in protest, accusing the pair of “nepotism”.

The seat will now pass to Rebecca Taylor from Todmorden, who came third on the party’s regional list in 2009.

Read the full story at the Yorkshire Post.

Martin Schulz                 387 votes

Nirj Deva                         142 votes

Diana Wallis                    141 votes

Giving his acceptance speech to MEPs, Mr Schulz told MEPs: ”Those who have voted for me can take pride in having done so. Those who didn’t vote for me will be pleasantly surprised.”. However, the result implies a degree of dissatisfaction with the cosy deal stitched up between the two largest Groups in the Parliament, the Socialists and Democrats, and the European People’s Party, as the other two candidates polled much better than the voting strengths of their Groups might have indicated.

In response to the result, Diana Wallis said in a message thanking her supporters;

 “My candidacy was about enabling a stronger European Parliament so as to bring it closer to all Europeans through my Presidency. It was also about challenging the existing status quo among the leadership of the main political groups in the EP. I did not achieve these particular goals, but I did achieve a more open debate about them. On top of this I believe through my candidacy we achieved something extraordinary through the campaign media platforms: a real engagement with European citizens. The future relies on the EU citizens and their full engagement in the upcoming years. I continue to have a vision of Europe and particularly of a European Parliament that is much closer to the citizens of Europe. I will continue to do my utmost to promote that goal.”

Very great caution should be exercised if a major conflagration is to be avoided. The Iraq debacle should be enough for wise counsels to prevail. Saddam Hussein had no Weapons of Mass Destruction as it transpired, which was the “sexed up” claimed reason for the Bush/Blair invasion. The Chilcot public inquiry examining the validity of this claim has been delayed yet again – which itself is hardly reassuring. And still it seems the zeal for military adventurism is undiminished despite the more recent successive policy failures in Afghanistan.

One of the most searing influences in my political autobiography was the Anglo-French invasion of Suez in 1956 which ended in ignominy and was roundly condemned worldwide. Two politicians learnt the lessons though coming from diametrically opposite ideological positions: Harold Wilson and Enoch Powell both opposed any UK involvement in the Vietnam war. As PM, Wilson despatched Harold Davies, the left-wing MP for Leek and a junior minister of pensions, as his envoy to Hanoi to talk to Ho Chi Minh the Leader of Communist North Vietnam. The ploy worked and the visit served as the reason for the UK not supporting the US in an action that also ended in defeat. Powell took the view that nationalism would prove a stronger factor influencing the medium term future than the ‘domino theory’ then being advanced by Washington that the whole of SE Asia would turn Communist. Both Wilson and Powell, of course, were utterly vindicated by history.

Unfortunately, later generations of political leaders ignored the lessons of Suez and those now in office should be forcefully reminded of them as they contemplate new military excursions. The Liberal party vehemently opposed Eden’s invasion of Egypt’s Canal Zone and it, too, was proved right. Being in Coalition now, there is a high risk of the Liberal Democrats being dragged into a new conflagration in the Middle East.

UK governments, following the Iraq WMD farcical pretext, are now required to seek prior Commons’ approval for military action; in practice this approval will always be sought subsequently along with the inevitable mission creep.

That is why LD members should raise their voices now to strongly assert that no military action against Iran should be contemplated by the Coalition without cast iron evidence as to Iran’s malign intentions. LDs must maintain its distinctive commitment to agreed UN sanctioned intervention as a last resort.

To be sure, Iran is not currently a friendly nation as far as the West is concerned, while its internal record on human rights is utterly deplorable, and we recoil at its theocratic system of government and widespread anti-Semitism, but as yet there is far too little hard intelligence to justify armed invasion by land, sea or air. Iran also has potential for reform. Like many countries of the Arab Spring, Iran has a very young population. It experienced widespread popular protests of its own in 2009 when reformist presidential candidates were the victims of electoral fraud, and arguably has greater potential to develop into a stable democracy than its neighbour Iraq. Any military action must be carefully weighed against the effect it will have for eliciting greater nationalistic sentiment in Iran and support for its current government, and the further long term damage it will have for the relationship between Iran and both western powers and many of its regional neighbours with Sunni led Governments. Liberal Democrats should have the courage to tell its Leaders to resist the siren calls that the Tories, emulated by New Labour, cannot resist making – it’s second nature to them.

Harold Wilson and Enoch Powell would surely concur that the interests of the UK are best served by avoiding recourse to military action except in the most compelling and convincing circumstances. Iran is a long way from those. Liberal Democrats should take the lead in re-instating a Wilson/Powell-type coincidental consensus.

Trevor Smith has been a Liberal Democrat working peer since 1997, having joined the Liberal Party in 1955.

The failure of the Lokpal Bill in Parliament is a good example of just how difficult Parliamentary business can be in India. The Lok Sabha is directly elected on a constituency basis, but with regional loyalties such a strong determinant of voting, thirty-four political parties are represented, as well as nine independents.

If you think that two party coalition is tough, consider for a moment the job of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose ruling Congress Party governs as part of the United Progressive Alliance, a grouping of fourteen political parties which still has to rely on the support from others and the disunity of the opposition to achieve a majority on any particular piece of legislation. This gives immense bargaining power to individual MPs in pursuit of both personal and political gain. This is the embodiment of the nightmare scenario envisaged by opponents of electoral reform in the United Kingdom – all delivered in India by the first past the post system bequeathed by the British. As in the UK, legislation must also pass through the second chamber, the Rajya Sabha, but here most of the representatives are delegates of the States and Union Territories, chosen by the State Legislatures and not by direct election.

The tensions between the wielding of power at the centre, and that held by the States impact on most legislative proposals, the Lokpal Bill being but the latest example, where a centrally imposed measure was seen in some quarters as a Trojan horse for central control of state matters. It’s worth mentioning here that some states in India are vast – Uttar Pradesh alone has a population of 200 million, making it the fifth or sixth largest country in the world were it to be an independent nation.

Indeed, India is an interesting comparator for the European Union, with a federal structure, a common currency but wildly differing tax rates between States (don’t buy foreign drinks here in Tamil Nadu by the way, imported alcohol is taxed at 58%, according to our dinner bill one evening). It provides evidence to support the contention that what Europe really needs is a strong central control of monetary policy for those countries in the Eurozone, but a more relaxed attitude towards regulation otherwise, allowing the component nations greater leeway to set standards at levels that suit the individual cultural norms, in other words, subsidiarity.

The European Liberal Democrats have announced the venues for their Council meetings and annual Congress for 2012.

The first Council meeting will take place in Yerevan, Armenia and is expected to take place on 11-12 May, just five days after scheduled Parliamentary elections. This might be seen as a bold decision, given that following the 2007 elections, opposition parties alleged widespread fraud and called for mass demonstrations, although European observers felt that the vote largely met international standards. The Liberal Democrat delegation of fifteen, led by Robert Woodthorpe-Browne, will be discussing such issues as a common corporate tax base for Europe.

The second Council meeting and Congress will take place in Dublin this autumn, with the date yet to be confirmed, with hosts Fianna Fail promising a lively time to be had by all. A rather larger delegation will be attending this meeting, and if you’re eligible to take part, and are interested in joining our delegation, contact paul[dot]speller[at]libdems[dot]org[dot]uk.

* Newshound sets the agenda, as you would expect from a Red Setter

The weekend debates have been light on foreign policy so far, so for those foreign policy buffs out there here’s one inspired by our former leader.

Over at Ted talks, Paddy Ashdown has been discussing ‘the global power shift’ from the West to the rest and in particular to the nations around the Pacific rim.

He touches on a lot of areas, including what the future of global governance might look like, how long American power might remain dominant and the growth of a multi-polar world.

He talks about how our alliances will begin to shift in favour of new common interests and beyond our traditional allies: ”We are going to have to do business with people with whom we don’t share common values but we share common interests.” And we have to understand that: “Increasingly I share a destiny with my enemy”.

So is he right? Arguably we already do business with those who don’t share our values but are we at the stage where we can no longer draw a line in the sand? And if we did what would that line look like? Would it include dodgy arms sales, poor human right or inadequate environmental protections or perhaps something else entirely?

This was apparent in the case of the Iraq war. The public disquiet about the UK invasion of Iraq’s four Southern provinces, and the objections of the UK Liberal Democrats to the war as a whole, did not prevent the war from going ahead, nor the UK’s heavy involvement in it. However, it did serve to limit the depth of UK involvement after the invasion, and as the occupation started to go badly wrong those senior UK military, FCO and MoD officers who were skeptical about the venture were put in a stronger position. For many, of course, the Iraq venture was a travesty of democracy, especially with PM Blair’s reported promise to President Bush to ‘prepare public opinion’ in the UK for the conflict, rather than heed the wishes of the public. Nevertheless, the process through which the UK limited its role and withdrew its troops was a sign of ‘democracy at work’, despite this being a perverse concept for many.

The recent behavior of the UK administration over a potential war with Iran, however, suggests that senior UK security, military and diplomatic officials have chosen to interpret lessons from Iraq in their own special way – to make decision-making less democratic and not to engage with the political class on the matter as far as possible. This head-in-the-sand approach to democracy is a grave error which could backfire catastrophically, and lead to the destabilization of the United Kingdom as a nation-state. Whilst we learnt that the UK monarch praised Gus O’Donnell for holding UK plc together in the economic crisis and for focusing Coalition negotiators on the long term national interest, it is now all about to be undone by the UK’s traditionally pro-Pentagon security establishment over Iran.

The UK has foolishly followed ‘instructions’ from the Pentagon and led the call in Europe to apply general economic sanctions on Iran – an act of dubious legality and outside of the legal UN nuclear sector sanctions. In addition, the UK has sent its new Royal Navy Type 45 ‘stealth destroyer’ HMS Daring, to the waters off the coast of Iran, to join other UK surface and submarine assets.

It is foolish because these steps have been sold to Downing Street as a way to put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear weapons development – in effect as a substitute for war.

The problem is, these steps and organising a partial global boycott of Iranian oil are a precursor to war and a potential cause of it. This is because the latest November 8^th 2011 IAEA report on Iran provides no evidence that Iran has a physical weapons programme, and indeed concurs with the United States multi-agency assessment in 2007 that Iran gave up is embryonic nuclear weapons programme in 2003. What’s more, the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, very much the White House’s guy, stated only this week that Iran did not currently have an active nuclear weapons programme! One must not forget that Iran has been accused of being ‘nearly there’ with a nuclear weapon since 1984.  There are many reasons to ‘pressure’ Iran on a range of matters, but Iran being anywhere near to having a nuclear weapon is not one of them.

Given that US security institutions have persuaded the UK to go along with steps to an unnecessary war, when the US Secretary of Defence (and half the Israeli cabinet, incidentally) is against it, one would expect some dissent in the UK political system.

But there is hardly a whisper. Where is the parliamentary debate ? Where are the anti-war Lib Dem voices? Has the UK Deputy Prime Minister looked past the CNN and BBC spin and actually read the IAEA’s short report? Has the Lib Dem Defence Minister got laryngitis? With hundreds of thousands of lives and the coherence of the UK socially and economically at risk, one would certainly hope so.

As a politician, starting the day with newspapers and coffee is a habit that is hard to break. Indian newspapers are a joy, with their old fashioned use of English – “the altercation ended in fisticuffs”, “the ruffians were apprehended” and a diet of celebrity gossip and above all, politics. All Indian media give detailed blow-by-blow accounts of the machinations of politicians in the national and state governments and, although there’s a lot going on, not much really seems to happen. Progress in India happens despite the politicians, not because of them.

The new politics which have emerged after independence was based on caste, religion and regional loyalties, to which family ties have now been added, with the Gandhi dynasty merely the most prominent example. The newspapers are full of stories of sons, daughters and in-laws of senior party figures being given candidacies over the heads of long-term party loyalists.

And whereas at home, our politicians are condemned as venal and corrupt on the basis of an expenses scandal, here there are reports of scores of candidates in forthcoming State elections with criminal records for offences ranging up to, and including, murder.

In short, what I’ve seen here in India mirrors, but on a gigantic scale, that which I’ve seen in other Commonwealth countries such as Bangladesh and Jamaica, namely huge old-fashioned bureaucracy and corrupt politicians, combined with a glacially slow judicial system.

Corruption has been this year’s issue in India, with a movement for social reform emerging from a sense of frustration with Indian politicians. The activities of anti-corruption campaigner Anna Hazare, and the huge support he has been gained in recent months has forced the political establishment to take the issue seriously. An already watered down Lokpal Bill, designed to put into place an anti-corruption ombudsman, got through the Lok Sabha (equivalent to our House of Commons), but fell in the Rajya Sabha (the Council of States, broadly equivalent to our House of Lords), amid a welter of recriminations.

There is a real danger that the impetus for reform will dissipate, as ‘Team Anna’ struggles to capitalise on its support. Anna himself is in hospital, suffering from months of Mahatma Gandhi-style campaigning and fasting tough even for someone considerably younger than his seventy-four years. Out of naivety, inexperience or over-enthusiasm, or a combination of all three, ‘Team Anna’ has made a series of tactical errors, allowing itself to be seen as too much the creature of one particular political party, the Hindu nationalist BJP. And on top of that, one of their leading activists has been, irony of ironies, charged with evading stamp duty of approximately £160,000 on the sale of a property.

It would be a huge mistake for India’s political class to continue to ignore the corruption issue. Voters may be justifiably cynical about their politicians, but India is a country where democracy itself is taken very seriously, and the growing disconnect between the governed and the governing will continue to grow as the population becomes better educated and less tolerant of their politicians bad behaviour. An emerging middle class has a better capacity for organised protest can either be harnessed positively by such people as Anna Hazare, or could take a more dangerous form.

Think of this as an experiment.

I’ve always been intrigued by questions such as, “What does the rest of the world think about what we’re up to?”. In a surprisingly parochial political culture, where the debate, if there is any, is about what the big countries are up to, what is the view from other places? And, as those nice young people at Liberal Democrat Voice have left me partly in charge on a day release basis, I thought that I should at least make an effort to find out…

So, from time to time, I’ll be posting pieces written on politics abroad, sometimes relating to British politics, sometimes not, most of them by someone else. However, whilst I have an interesting address book, readers of Liberal Democrat Voice may know of people from outside of the UK who have an interesting perspective, and I would welcome your suggestions as to who we might approach, so leave your comments below, and I’ll get back to you.

Jobs, Growth & Reform

Europe is at a dangerous crossroads. Without decisive and concrete action, we risk recession, rising unemployment and falling living standards. There is a real risk of Europe turning inwards, with a return to the protectionist policies of the past. Our ability to prevent this now depends on our willingness to act together in the collective interest.

Resolving the economic crisis is the urgent priority. This clearly requires greater fiscal coordination, discipline and solidarity. But our problems cannot be solved through austerity alone. Unless we can tackle another underlying cause of the crisis – Europe’s lack of global competitiveness – this crisis will be the first of many.

We are firmly of the view that a vital part of a lasting solution is an urgent and far-reaching reform agenda to create the right skills mix and to help unlock jobs and economic growth across the EU. Europe has done this before: the Single Market Programme of the 80s and 90s was a truly remarkable liberal achievement, tearing down trade barriers within Europe and unlocking unprecedented levels of new jobs, growth and prosperity. We need to build on the progress made to date, in particular through Mario Monti’s 2010 report on the Single Market and the Commission’s Single Market Act, to recapture this level of ambition.

We therefore call on all European leaders and institutions to use the January 2012 European Council meeting to kick start and drive forward an Urgent and Ambitious Plan for Jobs and Growth in Europe, including:

A programme for the completion of the Single Market by 2015. This should include a growth test to identify the priority measures, a fast-track mechanism to drive them through the legislative process, and a commitment to prioritise their implementation and enforcement. Completing the single market in the services and digital sectors alone could add hundreds of billions of Euros to the European economy and generate thousands of Euros in extra annual income for the average European household;

A programme running until 2015 for the reform of existing EU legislation, including social and employment legislation, to aid domestic structural reforms across Europe and help deliver flexible labour markets, boost European competitiveness and increase employment;

An ambitious external trade package that taps into the dynamism of other economies around the world, with the aim of completing all existing FTAs by the end of the year – contributing an extra €60bn to the European economy – and including the launch of new trade negotiations with Japan and the US as soon as possible. Such an ambitious external trade agenda could generate millions of European jobs. Meanwhile, we must insist on the respect of existing market access in third countries and must not allow protectionism to gather strength.

A commitment from member states and EU institutions to focus their limited financial and human resources on prioritising competitiveness, innovation, research and infrastructure;

A commitment from member states and EU institutions for growth, competitiveness and external trade to be priority agenda items on all European Council summits until the end of this Commission;

A reinforced smart regulation programme that incorporates the Commission’s welcome new approach to minimising the regulatory burden on SMEs, and includes reviews of the acquis for further opportunities to exempt or lighten the regulatory burden on micro-businesses where justified, a new administrative burden-reduction target and regular progress reports to the Council and Parliament.

Unity, the EU-27 & Eurozone Fiscal Integration

Finding credible solutions to the Eurozone crisis remains our number one priority and is in the interests of all member states. We call upon the European institutions to come to conclusions on the Commission’s enhanced six pack proposals and to adopt positions on the green paper on stability bonds. We recognise that the draft Reinforced Economic Union (REU) Treaty is a step towards greater fiscal coordination, discipline and solidarity among Eurozone countries. However, we strongly believe that this must not come at the cost of division or disunity in the EU.

We therefore call for the new Treaty to focus on fiscal matters among Eurozone members, believing that enhanced competitiveness is most effectively pursued by all EU-27 member states; for the Treaty to safeguard the community method and fully respect the policies and competencies of the EU as set out in the EU Treaties; and for the REU Treaty to be rolled into the EU Treaties in due course.

Having promised to ‘re-engage with Europe’, Nick sees this meeting as part of that process, using the umbrella organisation of European liberalism to gather potential allies and influence the European Commission more positively than David Cameron did at last month’s Brussels summit.

Interestingly, Douglas Carswell MP has felt the need to comment on the event, suggesting that the gathering will have little value and asking;

“There will be a lot of mushy goodwill and talk of re-engagement, but does that mean that our government will be able to safeguard our national interest?”

Which does rather lead one to ask the question, if this is a liberal event, rather than an official government one, what is he on about? But, for his benefit, Liberal Democrats tend to feel that working with people to make Europe better for business and for people is better than opting out.

Nevertheless, at the meeting liberal ministers and EU commissioners will discuss the euro zone crisis, measures to boost growth in the bloc’s fragile economy and the future of the EU’s multi-billion euro budget, the initial ELDR discussions of which were covered by Liberal Democrat Voice in December.

At the time of the electoral protests in Tehran, Iranian staff at the British embassy were being accused by the Iranian authorities of treason and fomenting unrest. There was only muted support for the reform movement in Iran from the international community.

Last month we saw the British Embassy in Tehran ransacked and vandalised and the ambassador withdrawn. The same authorities in Iran that were able to disperse tens of thousands of democracy activists in 2009 were seemingly unable to protect the Embassy and its staff from harassment.

The lack of vocal support for human and democratic rights in Iran was carried over into initially tepid and ambiguous support for the rights of protestors across the Middle East, until the violence and repression reached levels that could not be ignored.

On Iran, attention is focused almost exclusively on the potential nuclear threat (WMDs) and escalating sanctions (largely ignored by Russia and China) – the precursors to the invasion of Iraq.

If there are to be any lessons from Iraq – it is that we need to provide an outlet and genuine visible support for voices in Iran that seek a progressive and democratic counterweight to the overbearing dominance of the theocracy that seized power following the overthrow of the Shah.

These foreign policy issues are often serious and complex, particularly in the Middle East.  The UK needs to maintain a principled and consistent advocacy for protection of human and civil rights, that is not abandoned in favour of the apparent stability of ‘better the devil you know than the one you don’t’ or traded off for concessions on inspection of nuclear facilities. In this way we will be better prepared to respond to potential unrest in Iran following the inevitable collapse of the murderous Assad regime in Syria.

Gaddafi was donned with a veneer of respectability and allowed to maintain his parasitical domination of the Libyan people, without external criticism, in return for giving up Libya’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Are we to repeat the same mistake with the equally brutal and repressive rulers of Iran?

As Liberal Democrats we should be able to reach out and engage with reformists in Iran that seek only the freedoms and human rights that we take for granted in the West. Our support for universal human rights should be unequivocal and untainted by the belligerency of despotic regimes.  It is these reformists in Iran that may hold the key to muffling the drumbeat to war and advancing the future prospect of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East.

Bensouda is the first African to hold the post of Chief Prosecutor, an important step in helping the ICC maintain the confidence of African countries given how often Africans are up before the ICC.

The ICC’s remit is not limited to Africa and nor are the atrocities it can investigate confined to one part of our globe, but in practice a very high proportion of the International Criminal Court’s high profile cases recently have been African. Some have therefore accused the ICC of bias, with Bensouda’s predecessor Luis Moreno-Ocampo coming under particular criticism. Myself, I think the apparent concentration on Africa in some ways reflects well on the continent, showing how it is leaving some of the horrors of its past behind in a way that allows the ICC remit to be deployed even when other parts of the globe are in effect off-limits.

But regardless of views on that controversy, having an African as the Chief Prosecutor – and no token African given her impressive career, including time as the deputy chief prosecutor – is a welcome move.

Yet things are not quite that simple, as was shown by the nervous dip on Asian stock markets after the announcement of Kim Jong-Il’s death and the sabre-rattling gesture of North Korea’s firing test missiles only hours afterwards. That was to remind everyone – not least the South Koreans, the Japanese and the Americans – that however impoverished and backward North Korea may be, it still boasts a dangerous regime which cannot be treated lightly. However, it might take weeks or even months before young Kim Jung-un asserts his authority, or rather before the shadowy military establishment behind the government shows how much authority it is ready to grant him.

China, despite having become increasingly impatient recently with its erratic neighbour, its isolationism and ‘rogue state’ activities, nonetheless sent heartfelt condolences to Pyongyang, describing Kim Jong-Il as one of the world’s great leaders. William Hague, speaking for Britain, more deviously expressed sympathy for the North Korean people in their distress and said that the world will be watching how the country develops.

In the meantime, there is bound to be a glut of books about Kim Jong-Il, who was global politics’ nearest equivalent to Michael Jackson. The stories about his weirdness and sybaritic excesses are legion, and at least some of them are true. He had one of the greatest private DVD collections of Hollywood movies in the world and imported huge quantities of the most expensive French cognac for his personal use. He wore platform heels, sported a bouffant hairstyle and never conquered his morbid fear of flying. In a word, Kim Jong-Il was grotesque. And yes, probably a monster. He and his lieutenants clearly learned a lot from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, in the way that they kept ordinary people subjugated through ignorance and fear. But that is not necessarily a situation that can endure much longer.

Jonathan Fryer is Chairman of London Liberal Democrats and lectures at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)