Nick Clegg's self-defeating move on Europe and immigration

I once heard Jim Wallace say that when your opponents start fighting on your chosen ground you should be pleased. It shows you are winning this debate.

He is right, which is why I do not think Nick Clegg's embrace of the Conservatives' anti-immigrant rhetoric will achieve its aim of curbing the threat from UKIP.

Imagine you are a UKIP voter - go on, try. If you here even the leader of the hated Liberal Democrats admitting that we are too soft on immigrants who come here to live off the state, that will confirm you in your view of the world. It will not make you question it and decide to vote Liberal Democrat instead.

I think there is a better approach and it is that advocated in the Commentary in the current issue of Liberator, which advocates the consistent third of the electorate that is pro-European:

That one third is a minority but it is a considerably larger one than that which has ever voted Liberal Democrat. It is the obvious pool in which the party should be fishing. 

The pro-European vote has effectively been abandoned in previous elections, perhaps on the assumption that it had nowhere much else to go. Not merely can that vote be awakened but it is essential that it is awakened ahead of any referendum eventually happening.

At present Nick Clegg is veering between this approach and one that seeks to appeal to everyone. When pursuing the latter he talks about the centre, but in the case of immigration at least, he locates that centre far to the right.

I  am not the most instinctive pro-European you have ever met. I recognise that being in coalition involves compromise. It is just that I do not think this latest Clegg initiative will work.

Mainstream politicians, by pandering to the Farages of this world, are feeding the very far-right public opinion they fear. I suspect that, once again, we are seeing an effect of the political class now being formed from such a narrow, privileged base.

This post first appeared on Liberal England.

Liberator says something nice about Nick Clegg - honest!

Credit where it’s due, Nick Clegg’s “I’m In” campaign on Europe may finally see the Liberal Democrats campaigning on Europe during the course of a European parliamentary election.

That would be a welcome break with precedent. In previous euro elections, the party has acted as though it viewed the exercise as, at best, a chance to train its organisation in target seats by campaigning on purely local issues or, at worst, something it wished would go away.

National campaigns have been hesitant and embarrassed, a situation not helped by mistaken attempts to appeal to eurosceptics by making incautious promises about referendums.

How often does it need to be said that eurosceptics will vote UKIP or Tory? With at least two choices of the real thing on offer, they will not be impressed by the Liberal Democrats suddenly trying to pretend unconvincingly that they too are eurosceptics of some sort, obsessed by pointless referendums.

That tendency was at its worst in the last euro elections, with Clegg lending his weight to calls for a referendum on the spurious grounds that there hadn’t been one since 1975.

He now appears to have grasped something that has long been staring Liberal Democrat politicians in the face. Despite the weight of press hostility, emotional hysteria and nationalist bigotry on the eurosceptic side, there is a consistent one third or so of the population that is pro-European.

That one third is a minority but it is a considerably larger one than that which has ever voted Liberal Democrat. It is the obvious pool in which the party should be fishing.

The pro-European vote has effectively been abandoned in previous elections, perhaps on the assumption that it had nowhere much else to go. Not merely can that vote be awakened but it is essential that it is awakened ahead of any referendum eventually happening.

Through a combination of coalition legislation and political reality, the Liberal Democrats have ended up, possibly by accident, with a quite sound policy on Europe – that the party favours membership of the EU, is prepared to expound its benefits, and will tolerate a referendum only when there is something to have one about, by which it means some major proposed change in the UK’s relations with the EU.

This is where the party should have ended up years ago instead of wittering on about referendums in a vain attempt to placate people who will never vote Liberal Democrat. It gives next year’s euro candidates something to fight on and the party a reason to campaign. About time too.


This is the Commentary column from Liberator 362, which will be out next week. Also includes Felix Dodds and Simon Titley on How to be a Liberal minister, Greg Mulholland MP on why the pubcos should be tackled, and Rebecca Tinsley on how to give aid to Africa without lining the pockets of the corrupt... plus RB, reviews and Lord Bonkers.

The answer to the Ultimate Question of Europe: 42

We all know what would be Eurosceptics’ answer to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union: “no”. But what is the question?

The question of the question has been raised by Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff, who asks what kind of EU would Britain be choosing to stay in or leave. He points out that, if David Cameron gets his way and there is a referendum in 2017, by then the EU will have changed.

As in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where the answer to “the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything” was 42 but nobody knew the question, so Eurosceptics have an answer but no question.

As Duff says, if you want to resolve this issue favourably, it is better to get engaged in the argument within the EU about the sort of EU we want and the fundamental reforms currently being debated, instead of standing on the sidelines obsessing about an answer to which there is as yet no question.

Who are these mysterious “Senior Liberal Democrats”?

Those mysterious people, ‘Senior Liberal Democrats’, have been at it again, according to yesterday’s London Evening Standard:

Senior Liberal Democrats want Nick Clegg’s stance on Europe to shift, amid fears that voters will believe him unwilling to offer an in-out referendum on EU membership.

The group warns there is a danger Lib-Dems will be portrayed as not trusting the British public to make a decision on Europe. They say the Conservative Party has stolen a march in painting themselves as the only party wanting a vote on leaving the EU.

A Lib-Dem source said: “The Tories are saying they are the only party offering a referendum and that we don’t want to give people a choice. The danger is the charge will stick.

Who are these “Senior Liberal Democrats”? The Standard describes them as a “group”, then a “Lib-Dem source”. But we are given no clue about the provenance or authority of this source and therefore its credence.

However, the fact that the story rapidly retreats from the plural (“Senior Liberal Democrats” and “group”) to the singular (“a Lib-Dem source”) suggests that this is just one person, and a self-serving and cowardly one at that.

Whoever it is, this self-important “source” should either come out into the open or shut the fuck up.

Postscript: A clue to the anonymous “source” is the news on Liberal Democrat Voice that, with respect to Tory MP James Wharton’s private member’s bill on an EU referendum, “the Lib Dem parliamentary party will decide its position in a couple of weeks’ time”. My money’s on a Liberal Democrat MP who wants to scare his colleagues into supporting Wharton’s bill. Whoever it is obviously hasn’t the balls to express that view publicly.

Why leaving the EU would be counterproductive

Eurosceptics argue that Britain should withdraw from the European Union to gain greater autonomy. But leaving the EU would not achieve this objective.

In a post on the LSE’s British Politics and Policy blog, Seamus Nevin points out that leaving the EU would not only fail to secure what Eurosceptics desire but would likely make the UK’s position worse. Britain would continue to be strongly influenced by the EU, whether it liked it or not, but would have much less power.

EU laws, which the UK currently helps make, are becoming a de facto global standard and cannot be avoided:

EU law has to be negotiated, regardless of whether a state is within or outside the European Union. Strategies which imagine the EU issue can simply be wished away by leaving the Union not only fail to secure their desired result but would, in fact, likely make the UK’s position worse. Note that in exchange for access to the European single market, Norway, whom UKIP cite as a possible model for the UK, contributes to the EU budget and accepts almost all EU regulations yet has no say in forming those regulations.

Although the author doesn’t say so, his article reinforces the point that a desire to withdraw from the EU is not a serious policy proposition. It is an emotional spasm, stemming largely from the widespread feeling among people who are older or less educated that the world has left them behind.

The author argues for a renewed emphasis on reforming the EU from the inside. This is necessary but not sufficient, since it does not address the resentments of people who feel marginalised. We need policies that tackle this alienation by providing wider opportunities and involvement, otherwise emotion will trump reason.

A pro-EU article in the Mail?

Yes, it’s true. The financial section of the Mail on Sunday published a report with the headline:

Staying in the EU is vital for business, warn two-thirds of small firms

Well, it’s in the Mail, so it must be true. But it obviously hasn’t convinced the Mail’s readers, as the pig-headed comments beneath the article demonstrate.

Bad news for UKIP: the EU defends English

How will UKIP handle this counter-intuitive news?

The translators at the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg have come to the defence of proper English. They have just published A Brief List of Misused English Terms in EU Publications (pdf).

This list is actually not that ‘brief’ – it runs to 58 pages. But it is fluent and succinct, and arranged in a user-friendly format.

The introduction to the document explains why it has been written:

Over the years, the European institutions have developed a vocabulary that differs from that of any recognised form of English. It includes words that do not exist or are relatively unknown to native English speakers outside the EU institutions and often even to standard spellcheckers/grammar checkers (‘planification’, ‘to precise’ or ‘telematics’ for example) and words that are used with a meaning, often derived from other languages, that is not usually found in English dictionaries (‘coherent’ being a case in point). Some words are used with more or less the correct meaning, but in contexts where they would not be used by native speakers (‘homogenise’, for example).

It also anticipates an obvious criticism:

WHO CARES?

A common reaction to this situation is that it does not matter as, internally, we all know what ‘informatics’ are (is?), what happens if we ‘transpose’ a Directive or ‘go on mission’ and that, when our ‘agents’ are on a contract, they are not actually going to kill anyone. Indeed, internally, it may often be easier to communicate with these terms than with the correct ones (it is reasonable to suppose that fewer EU officials know ‘outsource’ than ‘externalise’, for example). However, the European institutions also need to communicate with the outside world and our documents need to be translated – both tasks that are not facilitated by the use of terminology that is unknown to native speakers and either does not appear in dictionaries or is shown in them with a different meaning. Finally, it is worth remembering that, whereas EU staff should be able to understand ‘real’ English, we cannot expect the general public to be au fait with the EU variety.

As an example, the document gives a slap on the wrist to Eurocrats who refer to ‘bovine’, ‘ovine’, ‘caprine’ or ‘porcine’ animals. It suggests they use the more familiar ‘cattle’, ‘sheep’, ‘goats’ and ‘pigs’ instead. And if any feel tempted to refer to a ‘hierarchical superior’, it recommends the simpler ‘manager’ or ‘boss’. As for ‘modality’ (a non-word unique to the EU institutions), that is right out.

UKIP has been silent on the issue of English grammar, probably because it is not one of Nigel Farage’s strengths. As UKIP’s founder Alan Sked explained:

The academic also said that he received letters complaining about the spelling and grammar used in Mr Farage’s election literature.

“There seemed to be a bit of problem distinguishing its from it’s,” Prof Sked recalled, adding that Mr Farage did admit that writing was not his area of expertise.

So the lesson is, when you want to stop Johnny Foreigner taking diabolical liberties with the Queen’s English, don’t bother waiting for UKIP to get its arse in gear – ask a Eurocrat.

Why America’s economy is recovering and Europe’s isn’t

The reason Europe’s economy isn’t recovering is a dogged insistence on austerity. That is the conclusion of John Cassidy, writing in the New Yorker:

The big mystery isn’t why austerity has failed to work as advertised: anybody familiar with the concept of “aggregate demand” could explain that one. It is why an area with a population of more than three hundred million has stuck with a policy prescription that was discredited in the nineteen-twenties and thirties. The stock answer, which is that austerity is necessary to preserve the euro, doesn’t hold up. At this stage, austerity is the biggest threat to the euro. If the recession lasts for very much longer, political unrest is sure to mount, and the currency zone could well break up.

So why is this woebegone approach proving so sticky? Some of the answers can be found in a timely and suitably irreverent new book by Mark Blyth, a professor of political economy at Brown: “Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea.” Adopting a tone that is by turns bemused and outraged, Blyth traces the intellectual and political roots of austerity back to the Enlightenment, and the works of John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith. But he also provides a sharp analysis of Europe’s current predicament, explaining how an unholy alliance of financiers, central bankers, and German politicians foisted a draconian and unworkable policy on an unsuspecting populace.

The central fact about Europe’s “debt crisis” is that it largely originated in the private sector rather than the public sector. In 2007, Blyth reminds us, the ratio of net public debt to G.D.P. was just twelve per cent in Ireland and twenty-six per cent in Spain. In some places, such as Greece and Italy, the ratios were considerably higher. Over all, though, the euro zone was modestly indebted. Then came the financial crisis and the fateful decision to rescue many of the continent’s creaking banks, which had lent heavily into property bubbles and other speculative schemes. In Ireland, Spain, and other countries, bad bank debts were shifted onto the public sector’s balance sheet, which suddenly looked a lot less robust. But rather than recognizing the looming sovereign-debt crisis for what it was—an artifact of the speculative boom and bust in the financial sector—policymakers and commentators put the blame on public-sector profligacy.

“The result of all this opportunistic rebranding was the greatest bait-and-switch operation in modern history,” Blyth writes. “What were essentially private-sector debt problems were rechristened as ‘the Debt’ generated by ‘out-of-control’ public spending.”

In other words, austerians are playing a game of ‘blame the victims’ and the consequences for real people’s lives are disastrous.

Queen’s Speech amendment: “an act of venal self indulgence”

Former Tory MP Jerry Hayes is usually worth reading and his verdict on those Tories backing the Queen’s Speech amendment is no exception:

The amendment to the Queen’s Speech could be the beginning of the end of the Conservatives in office. It is an act of venal self indulgence which will horrify those sentient members of the electorate who actually think and care and will antagonise those who fear for their jobs and families.

What is it meant to achieve? No parliament can bind another. But this amendment doesn’t even try to. It is just an expression of regret that the government’s legislative programme doesn’t mention a referendum. Most Labour MPs and all Lib Dems will vote against so it will be defeated.

What a thoroughly futile and pointless exercise. And according to some MPs this is just the beginning.

So apart from making them all look like incompetent fools more interested in a stunt to save their own miserable skins it is a gift to the Faragistas.

Hayes’s views (which once would have been a mainstream Tory perspective) now seem like a voice in the wilderness. No wonder he is exasperated with his former colleagues:

This freak show has got to stop. But it will get worse. This is a gift for Farage giving him a sense of importance that is totally unwarranted.

But this whole farce is just beginning to gain momentum. The Onanistic wing of the Tory Party are now pressing for a referendum on gay marriage. Completely nuts.

Hayes recognises something that eludes most fanatical eurosceptics. In all the grandiose talk about what the Great British Public thinks about the European Union, an important fact is forgotten. Most of the Great British Public couldn’t give a flying fuck one way or the other.

Europe: If only rational argument were enough

On the Left Foot Forward blog, Phillip Souta (director of Business for New Europe) demolishes many of the Eurosceptic myths surrounding the EU.

Souta warned that leaving the EU could jeopardise the 49 per cent of foreign direct investment stock in the UK that comes from other EU countries, as well incur significant import taxes for British goods entering the EU market. Souta also points out that the practical arrangements for life outside the EU simply haven’t been thought through.

All sound, rational arguments, which will give heart to pro-Europeans. The trouble is that most Eurosceptics aren’t moved by rational arguments one way or the other. Their hostility to the EU is essentially a gut reaction. And the EU isn’t even the focus of their ire, but merely a symbol of a deeper resentment of all that’s changed in the past fifty years and a desire to pull up the drawbridge.

Sadly, the Age of Enlightenment, despite having begun over 250 years ago, is still work in progress. Until that project is complete, pro-Europeans will need to develop an emotional appeal to complement their rational arguments. They won’t be able to win a referendum campaign unless they do.

Postscript: The need for a strong emotional case is reiterated by George Smid of Corby Liberal Democrats.

The end of democracy?

Why is the public gradually disengaging from democratic politics?

Henry Farrell thinks he knows the answer. In an essay inspired by Colin Crouch’s influential book Post-Democracy, he writes a depressing epitaph for democracy. Globalisation and neoliberal economics have combined to shift power elsewhere, while the voters are left with less and less choice. In a postscript on the Crooked Timber blog, Farrell laments the current political chaos in Italy.

The problem with Farrell’s thesis is that he conflates the malaise of democracy in general with that of social democracy or moderate socialism. It is true that democracy is in trouble, and that neoliberalism has had a major role to play in the undermining of democratic politics. But just because the traditional left has no answer to the current economic crisis does not necessarily mean democratic politics as a whole is impotent.

The collapse of neoliberal orthodoxy in the recent financial crisis was a gift to its opponents but the traditional left has been completely unable to provide a coherent or compelling response. That is not because democracy is failing. It is because the social and economic conditions of the post-war era (which made the social democratic settlement possible) no longer apply. Like UKIP, social democrats yearn for a return to the 1950s, but for different reasons.

There is a coherent and compelling response for the Liberal Democrats to adopt (once they get over their current fixation on blending into the establishment). First, they should adopt the recommendations of the Rowntree-funded Power Inquiry (full report here and executive summary here), which examined popular disengagement from formal democratic politics in Britain (and which was previously discussed on this blog here). Second, they should develop some radical new economic thinking, and this work has already begun, in particular with the ALDC’s 2008 pamphlet by David Boyle and Bernard Greaves, The Theory and Practice of Community Economics, and the just-published Green Book.

One can at least agree with Farrell that things cannot continue as they are. One cannot accept his fatalism simply because the parties of the old left resemble exhausted volcanoes.

Move along folks, nothing to see here

David Cameron won’t like it. The Daily Express won’t like it. But their favourite scare story will be a non-event.

It turns out that there will probably not be hordes of Bulgarians and Romanians descending on Britain on 1st January 2014 (when restrictions on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania will be entirely lifted across the European Union).

EurActiv reports:

A Foreign Office-commissioned report has directly challenged claims by UK Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain faces a massive wave of immigration from Bulgaria and Romania when labour restrictions applying to these countries are lifted next January.

The 60-page report [pdf] by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) says that Britain is unlikely to be the preferred destination for Bulgarians and Romanians when labour restrictions are lifted.

And those who do plan to come are unlikely to take advantage of the UK’s social security system, it adds in a direct rebuttal of arguments put forward by the UK Prime Minister.

So, panic over.

Unfortunately, it’s not quite the end of the story. The Daily Express refuses to have its fox shot. It dismisses the NIESR report as a “whitewash” and has found a red under the bed:

The NIESR, whose director is Left-leaning economist and well-known immigration enthusiast Jonathan Portes, unsurprisingly seems to talk down the potential downsides of this impending migration.

Not just reds, but “liberal intellectuals”:

Instead of being soothed by warm words from cabals of liberal intellectuals, ministers should wake up to a looming disaster.

Well, it’s a free country and you are free to choose who to believe: “intellectuals” who have conducted serious research and produced a detailed and reasoned report, or an anonymous third-rate hack employed by a “porn baron” to churn out ignorant, hateful, racist bile.

The balance of Cameron’s competences

France and Germany have decided to have nothing to do with David Cameron’s review of the powers of the European Union. And they are quite right.

They consider that the UK government’s ‘review of the balance of competencies’, launched at the insistence of the Conservative half of the coalition, is a “domestic political exercise”, which it plainly is. If several EU member states had agreed that a comprehensive review were necessary, this project would have some legitimacy, but they haven’t, so it doesn’t.

The sole purpose of this review is to enable the British Conservative Party to mollify its eurosceptic wing sufficiently to avoid an internal split, while fending off the electoral threat from UKIP. To propose a review on these parochial grounds is imperial conceit of the highest order. Does anyone seriously believe that any sort of fundamental constitutional review for a 27-member union should be based primarily on the selfish needs of just one party in one member state?

France and Germany also point out, quite rightly, that you cannot have an “à la carte” approach to EU membership. When you join a club, you must abide by its rules. Of course, all the member states have a say in what those rules should be. The UK, as one of the larger member states, has more say than most, or would if the Tories were not so maladroit at making friends and influencing people.

The British Tories would rather the EU were simply a loose, free trade area. If that is what they really want, they need to build a coalition behind it by mobilising allies across the EU. Instead, they pulled out of the main right-wing bloc in the EU (the EPP, the largest group in the European Parliament) and formed a rival right-wing bloc (the ECR, a rag-bag of “nutters and homophobes” – Nick Clegg’s words, not ours).

And anyway, why should France and Germany care what David Cameron thinks? They know that he is unlikely to be able to leap all the hurdles he has set himself and won’t be around for much longer. As John Palmer points out:

The survey [the UK government’s review] is one part of a carefully orchestrated campaign designed to lead up to a possible referendum on EU membership, to be held towards the end of 2017. This, of course, will be well after the next general election and is designed to follow on what London expects will be a major new EU constitutional treaty to give the Euro area sweeping new powers.

The prime minister’s strategy therefore depends on him successfully clearing three critical hurdles. First: survive as leader of the Conservative party up to the general election. Second: win the next UK election with a clear overall Tory majority. Third: trading demands for the UK to be given a special semi-detached status in the EU in return for not blocking a new treaty for euro-area economic and political union.

There are obvious question marks over all three stages.

The irony is that all this nationalist posturing by the Tories is actually harming the national interest. As this morning’s Guardian leader argues, it is marginalising Britain and diminishing its influence. But then the Tories are so short-sighted and unimaginative that symbols of national pride matter more to them than the substance of national influence.

It’s in the Daily Express so it must be true

Thanks to Tabloid Watch, which found this headline in Tuesday’s Daily Express:

EU attempts to brainwash children with ‘sinister Soviet-style propaganda’

It is, of course, another Euromyth. The story turns out to be complete and utter bollocks.

Opposition to the European Union is a legitimate point of view but, like any other political opinion, it should be supported by evidence and rational arguments. When Eurosceptics resort to this sort of nonsense, they really must be on weak ground.

As the European Parliament’s Information Office in the UK points out:

Welcome to the brave new world of EU reporting at the Daily Express, where information is bad, transparency is dictatorship, civic rights are forms of oppression and checking facts makes you blind.

Bankers’ bonuses: Liberals 1 Tories 0

The EU proposal to cap bankers’ bonuses has received predictable opposition from David Cameron and Boris Johnson.

The willingness of the Tories to continue to defend the selfish interests of the bankers who caused the global financial crisis seems to know no bounds.

So it is good to hear Sharon Bowles, Liberal Democrat MEP and chair of the European Parliament’s most powerful committee, the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, strike the right note:

“Overall, this is a major achievement for [the European] Parliament, in curbing the culture of quick profit and irresponsible lending that has played such a pernicious role in fuelling Europe's banking crisis.”

Meanwhile, if the Tories are right, and a few irresponsible and overpaid arseholes flee to Singapore or Zurich, good riddance.

Austerity = drop in GDP = rubbish policy

The policy of fiscal austerity has failed throughout Europe. Which radical, left-wing publication has reached this conclusion? The Financial Times (£) [to get round the FT’s paywall, go to Google News and enter the phrase “The sad record of fiscal austerity” in the search box].

The FT’s Martin Wolf is scathing about the European Central Bank’s policies before turning on the UK government:

...the panic that justified the UK coalition government’s turn to a long-term programme of austerity was a mistake. Had its members never heard of the paradox of thrift? If the domestic private and external sectors are retrenching, the public sector cannot expect to succeed in doing so, however hard it tries, unless it is willing to drive the economy into a far bigger slump. While short-term factors have played a real part, it is not surprising that the UK’s recovery has stalled and the deficit is so persistent. It is consequently also not surprising that downgrades are on the way, not that these tell one anything very useful in the case of an issuer with access to its own money-printing machine.

Wolf concludes:

In the long run, the fiscal deficit must close. In the short run, the UK has the chance to push growth. It should take it. So should the US.

“The biggest waste of money in the EU”

“You know what I think is the biggest waste of money in the European Union of today? That’s the salary we all pay to Mr Farage.”

ALDE leader Guy Verhofstadt on splendid form in the European Parliament, taking apart the claims of UKIP leader Nigel Farage:

EU budget is no big deal

Today’s newspapers are full of hype about the cut in the European Union budget.

“David Cameron last night declared Victory in Europe,” blares The Sun.

“Cameron claims historic victory,” declares the Daily Telegraph.

“Tough-talking David Cameron forces through first ever EU budget cut,” brags the Daily Express.

So let’s get this in proportion. As the leaders of the four biggest groups in the European Parliament reminded us in a joint statement before the budget negotiations began:

• The EU budget comprises only about 1% of the combined GDP of all the member states.
• 94% of the financial contributions that the member states transfer to ‘Brussels’ is returned to member states through the various common policies or is spent on development aid.
• Administrative costs make up only 6% of the EU budget. The idea that taxpayers’ money is swallowed up by an all-consuming Brussels bureaucracy is a myth.

Also, it’s not just size but what you do with it. As the four group leaders pointed out:

The long-term EU budget must provide added value in terms of growth-boosting investment. It must also allow for flexibility, so that the EU can better react and channel funds to where they are most needed – in particular the investments in infrastructure, innovation and skills that represent the foundations for future sustainable growth.

If the budget is cut by 3% but the cuts fall not on agricultural subsidies but on “investments in infrastructure, innovation and skills that represent the foundations for future sustainable growth,” it will not be a ‘victory’ for anyone.

The cheapest item on the shelf does not necessarily offer the best value for money, so we need to hear more about quality and less about quantity.

And before David Cameron counts his chickens, the budget must still win the approval of the European Parliament.

Why not move to Romania?

A Romanian newspaper has responded to the suggestion that the British government should run an advertising campaign dissuading would-be Romanian immigrants from coming to Britain – with a spoof advertising campaign inviting Britons to move to Romania.

“Half our women look like Kate. The other half, like her sister” says one of these Romanian ads.

Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will enjoy the same freedom of movement as any other EU citizens after 31st December, when temporary restrictions on moving to Britain expire.

This has prompted some right-wing tabloids to run scare stories suggesting that millions of Romanians and Bulgarians will descend on Britain the minute the restrictions end.

The number of immigrants is unlikely to match the absurd estimates published by the Daily Express. Even if it did, would the coalition government seriously wish to advertise its achievements by telling the world how awful Britain is?

Cameron’s Euro-speech was rubbish – and here’s why

Yesterday, David Cameron finally ran out of excuses and got round to delivering his speech about the European Union.

It was rubbish. You probably know that already. But it’s important to understand why it was rubbish.

As Liberal Democrat MEP Bill Newton Dunn pointed out, some positive introductory remarks were nullified by a need to play to the eurosceptic gallery.

But the most important failing of Cameron’s speech is this: the mechanism he proposes for achieving what he wants is not practical. Worse, it is counter-productive. Worse still, it is impractical and counter-productive because the speech was more a PR stunt than anything else.

If Cameron were sincere about reforming the EU, he would have built an alliance within the EU to achieve his policy goals. He would have developed a practical long-term reform programme and persuaded other countries to join him.

Instead, Cameron took his party out of the EPP, the largest group of parties in the EU, which has isolated him from the influential centre-right parties that might otherwise have supplied the support he needs.

Since leaving the EPP, Cameron has done nothing constructive to win friends and influence people. Rather, he is holding a gun to the other EU members’ heads. The trouble is, it’s the sort of gun that circus clowns use. When you press the trigger, a banner unfurls that says “Bang!”

This is fitting, because it was also a circus clown’s speech – not because Cameron thinks Europe will be impressed by having a custard pie pushed in its face but because he knows it will amuse his antediluvian backbenchers.

The speech had little to do with Europe and everything to do with the internal politics of the Conservative Party. Cameron’s overriding needs are to maintain party unity and prevent elderly Daily Express-reading voters deserting to UKIP. Britain’s long-term political, economic and diplomatic interests are secondary.

The speech also suggests the Liberal Democrat ‘exit strategy’ for ending the coalition: we should run away from the circus to join the world.