Nick Clegg is wrong on EU benefits - his words and actions don't match up. We might save peanuts, but we lose so much more..

So, all these EU citizens from poorer countries coming here and claiming benefits. A huge problem? Actually, not so much. My Liberal Democrat Voice co-editor was bang on the money yesterday when he said:

So, for all the uproar and shouting, 94% of overseas nationals entering the UK do not claim out-of-work benefits within six months – c.6% do, compared to c.13% of UK natives. That’s not nothing, but it puts the issue into perspective, doesn’t it?

That’s also the most charitable explanation I can come up with for Nick Clegg’s decision to go along with the Tory proposals, describing them as “sensible and reasonable”. If he’d said the proposals were “blatantly populist but unlikely to have much effect beyond further stoking the public perception that immigrants are to blame for all our ills” he’d have been closer to the mark.

 Regular readers will be familiar with my "Lock me in a cupboard with a bottle of gin" list of things that I really cannot stand about this coalition. Things already on it include time limiting Employment and Support Allowance, the Bedroom Tax, secret courts and cuts to legal aid. There is, of course, also a list of fantastic stuff we've done, like the Scotland Act, ending child detention for immigration purposes, giving extra money to disadvantaged kids in school having a health minister who knows what he's doing about mental health and a pensions minister who has given the biggest cash rise in the state pension and put them on a fairer and more secure footing. But every time something else goes on the Gin List, the glow of the Good List diminishes.

I'm not saying that Santa Claus will be putting a lump of coal in Nick's stocking this Christmas, but I am well displeased with him for agreeing to Cameron's benefit restrictions. It will save the UK peanuts, but we will lose so much more. If you look at the big picture, what you see is the liberal voice you thought you could depend on to challenge the awful UKIP/DailyMail/Tory anti immigrant rhetoric ceding ground. It's all very well for Nick to say on Call Clegg that he's speaking for the majority of British people, but if the majority of British people are wrong, misinformed and have a view that's contrary to our core values,he should be challenging them to think differently. He should be pointing out where their facts are wrong and giving them evidence to the contrary.

What he shouldn't be doing is giving the forces of xenophobia and conservatism the sort of shot in the arm that was in his email to members last night:

Let others flirt with the prospect of European exit in order to pander to the right. We remain passionately committed to staying in the EU for the sake of British jobs, security and influence in the world.

That does not mean that we are indifferent to the need to reform the EU. On the contrary, pro-Europeans urgently need to reclaim this territory. Otherwise we surrender this debate to the populists and xenophobes – the people who want to pull up the drawbridge and pull Britain out of Europe.

For that very reason I am urging all pro-Europeans to back the changes to the access European nationals have to UK benefits announced by the Coalition Government today. It is precisely because I want Britain to remain an open and outward facing nation that I am delivering these reforms.

Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the European project and millions of Brits benefit from it every year. But years of mismanagement of the immigration system have undermined people’s confidence in it and this loss of faith must now be addressed. That is the only way to preserve this nation’s warm and welcoming nature. If we are to protect the right to move and work in the longterm, we must ensure it does not become an automatic right to claim benefits.

The trouble is he is legitimising the populists and xenophobes by ceding our ground to them. He says one thing and does another. It's just not right.He might use moderate language, but he will be associated forever with David Cameron's more bombastic approach. That is not what you want from an advocate of liberal values.

Sarah Teather, who has been consistently critical of the coalition's immigration policies, had this to say:

Once again we have an immigration policy announcement that has nothing to do with reacting to fact and everything to do with reacting to anti-immigration rhetoric-driven polling. Instead of providing political leadership and tackling immigration myths, these proposals target a problem that doesn't exist while stoking public anger and distrust towards foreigners.

Politicians are often far too afraid of talking about the benefits to the UK and its residents of being part of the EU project, which has freedom of movement at its heart. Over 2 million Brits live in other EU countries with tens of thousands of British citizens claiming benefits in their host countries, a fact many opinion formers seem to conveniently forget.

Reading today's proposals you would think that all EU nationals have unfettered access to the benefit system and that people from all over Europe are flocking to the UK in their millions in order to abuse our hospitality. Yet the reality is far different.

EU migrants already have to have to go through a process of registration before being able to claim benefits, which in itself takes several weeks and requires a fixed address. Plus the Government's own data shows that EU migrants are far less likely to be claiming out of work benefits than UK citizens.

If Nick is looking at a problem about immigration that actually needs solving, he would be well advised to look at what's happening to Isa Muaza at the behest of his cabinet colleague Mrs May. The Home Secretary is about to deport a man who is close to death, who hasn't eaten for 90 days in protest at the inhumane conditions we keep those who seek sanctuary in our country. The medics say that he isn't fit to fly, and even if he survives the journey, what's going to happen to him when he lands in Nigeria when he can't stand and can barely speak? I feel such utter shame and fury that my government is behaving so unethically and immorally.

The party is going to be debating immigration at Spring Conference in York in March. If you feel that we need to have a liberal immigration policy, please register here and come along to have your say. If your local party hasn't had its AGM, go along and stand to be a voting rep. If there are spare voting rep spaces, make sure that you organise that soon as the cut-off date will be some time in January.

Now is not the time to be running scared of the Daily Mail. There are more than enough people clamouring to put an illiberal point. Nick needs to get on the stage and loudly proclaim the liberal argument. He is not doing so at the moment. And it's abundantly clear that if he won't, nobody else will. There are vulnerable people who need us to stand up for them. If we let them down, we let ourselves down too.

What rights could we lose in Cameron's EU gamble?

Well, if Liberal Democrat activists were feeling a bit lethargic and demotivated, David Cameron gave them lots to fight for today. We have got to do everything we possibly can to stop him getting an overall majority.

If you're not in UKIP or the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party, Cameron had very little to say to offer today.

Here's his plan. He's going to go to the EU if he gets a majority next time and throw his weight about a bit. He'll tell them that unless we get to opt out of things like the Social Chapter and the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Arrest Warrant and a whole host of things that the EU is actually useful for, he'll throw his toys out of the pram and hope that they hit the white cliffs of Dover. So, your hard won right to a decent working week, to paid leave, all those inconvenient employment rights that Tories hate so much could all be lost. So would the facility to get criminals back speedily - like the guy who ran off with that young girl last year.Let's not kid ourselves, that's what Cameron ideally wants.

The chances are that our European partners will tell him to go forth and multiply when he tries it on. And then the Daily Mail will be even more full of xenophobic drivel than usual. But, as Ming Campbell so cleverly put it today, if you have a choice of two approaches, trying to get everyone to work through issues together, or making it all about you, which do you think is going to be more effective? Presumably in that instance we get a choice between the status quo and leaving the EU. That's probably better than the alternative referendum.

But, just say the rest of the EU gives Cameron what he wants. What do we get then? The Status Quo isn't an option. We have a choice between losing things many of  us hold dear or leaving the EU altogether. The choice between bugger all and catastrophe.

I'm really all referndummed out already. We'll have had best part of 4 years of the Scottish referendum by 2014 and then we'll have another 3 and a bit of the EU caper. Yes, I know, we could vote yes to avoid it, but, really, sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. An independent Scotland's terms of joining the EU are far from certain and very likely to be much worse than we currently enjoy.

Willie Rennie compared the SNP and Conservatives today, talking about how they both put their obsessions above the national interest:

The Conservatives and the SNP are now both advocates of grinding uncertainty.

Our priority should be to build a stronger economy in a fairer society but the Conservative obsess about Europe and the SNP about independence.

Their obsessions are creating a grinding uncertainty which will hamper our efforts to restore the economy and deliver fairness.

By the way, I think we Lib Dems should take the phrase "stronger economy in a fairer society" out of any bingo style drinking games right now. Our livers just won't be able to hack the pace. Just remember that we'll be sick of it long before the electorate has even cottoned on to it. There's a long way to go and we'll hear it a lot.

We'll hear a lot about how we aren't letting the people have their say on Europe. This is complete nonsense and the sort of people who will throw that one at us are the sort of people who are opposed to giving people a say in electing the House of Lords. The SNP didn't get their majority up here because people were clamouring to get a referendum on independence. They got it because there was no decent opposition to them at the 2011 election. We were in a mess over the Coalition and are in a better place now and Labour were next to useless. Actually, no, they were useless.

I think Nick Clegg has said the right thing today  - that, of course, if there's a reason to have a referendum, like a major move of powers from the UK to Brussels, then we'll have one, but otherwise our priority should be about growing the economy. I  think he may have mentioned a stronger economy in a fairer society too.

But there is a third choice, thankfully - making sure the Tories don't get a majority. That means getting back out on to doorsteps  and campaigning for every Liberal Democrat vote we can possibly get in the Counties, local elections, Euros and finally in 2015. Let's get to it.

What if Iran talked about holocaust and returning somewhere to the Middle Ages?

Can you just imagine the outcry if Iran's President Ahmadinejad came out with comments like wanting to send somewhere back to the Middle Ages.

What if he talked about inflicting a holocaust on a particular people? And then had his ministers scuttling around saying he didn't quite mean it like that. He really only meant "disaster". Yeah, because inflicting disaster on people is just fine.....

Well, there would be resolutions and murmurings and outrage and endless condemnation. And these things wouldn't be unjustified. That's absolutely no way to talk about anyone. Military objectives driven by destructive emotions are not a good thing.

Except it's not Iran saying these things. It's Israel. About the Palestinians in Gaza. Sure, Hamas shouldn't be firing rockets into Israel, but nor should Israel have such scant regard for the dreadful suffering its disproportionate response is causing.

So, where's the international condemnation? These comments by two Israeli ministers are unacceptable and I want to see Obama, Clegg, Cameron, the EU and the UN calling them out. I won't be holding my breath.

Update: There is, however, something useful you can do. Save the Children say that children are suffering the biggest impact of the Israeli bombardment. They've set up an emergency fund and are making sure that kids in Gaza have clean water and something to eat. Please give here if you can.

What do SNP ministers do to get themselves out of a sticky situation? Rewrite the rules, of course

Just when you thought the farce over the non-existent legal advice on Scotland's EU membership was over, yesterday's Herald has news of yet another twist.

Remember how keen Alex Salmond was to refer himself on the Ministerial Code? Apart from that being a big red herring anyway, it turns out the Government re-wrote it to suit Alex Salmond's case while the investigation  on Catherine Stihler's FOI request was going on.

If, as the Scottish Government spokesperson says, there was no difference in the meaning of the wording, why did they go to the bother of changing it?

Salmond wants to be able to say "Look, I didn't breach the Ministerial Code so those nasty unionists are trying to smear me. Aren't they horrible?"

Actually, relying on the Ministerial Code in this instance is a bit like trying to rely on the Highway Code to exonerat e you for  a misdemeanour you committed during a boxing match. What we know is that Salmond and the SNP bent over backwards over several months to create the impression that they had the legal advice we'd all expect them to have on the subject of an independent Scotland's EU membership. And then they had to confess, after they'd spent a small fortune of hard earned taxpayer's money taking the Information Commissioner to Court to cover it up, that they had no such advice after all.

The word that best describes such behaviour is, I think, sleekit.

Willie Rennie said:

Alex Salmond's emergency changes to his own Ministerial Code reveal the level of manipulation that enveloped his office following the receipt of the EU legal advice inquiry.

A few harsh facts of life on an independent Scotland's EU membership

Of all the weeks for Willie Rennie not to have a question at FMQs, this was probably the worst. While Johann Lamont and, particularly, Ruth Davidson gave Salmond just enough wiggle room over the bizarre EU legal advice issue, Willie had displayed a much more forensic approach on Tuesday. Here's the latter part of the exchange. 

This is a very serious matter, Presiding Officer, because the First Minister has not cleared up the issue. He said,

“Everything that we have said is consistent with the legal advice we have received.”
He said “received”, and the context was that he was talking about the law officers. The First Minister has not cleared up the matter. I urge him to come forward and clarify exactly what he said, because he has not done so, so far.

The Presiding Officer: First Minister, if you wish, you can make a further brief comment.

The First Minister: I admit that Willie Rennie did not add some of the descriptions that other people have used, but it is not a good idea for him to miss out the phrases 
“in terms of the debate”
and
“Well you could read that in the documents that we’ve put forward, which argue the position that we’d be successful.”

As I have pointed out, all the documents that I have listed were underpinned by legal advice from our law officers. That is different from the specific legal advice on a specific matter that the Deputy First Minister announced to members this afternoon. Any fair-minded person—I am aware that that excludes a number of people—would consider that the matter has been well and truly cleared up by the full transcript of the interview.

I think what Willie has successfully done is to show that Salmond and the SNP have gone out of their way to create the impression that there was some legal basis, based on current legal advice from proper Government law officers. While Salmond can dissect the actual words he used to get himself off the hook, there's no doubt that the ordinary Scot, watching that interview in March, would have thought they had that advice. That is the crucial point. Whether the Ministerial Code has been breached is pretty much irrelevant. It is more of an irritation that Salmond was prepared to blow our hard earned taxes taking the Information Commissioner to court so he could keep the lack of legal advice secret. If this sort of situation arises again, I could recommend that he picks up the phone and speaks to Eilish Angiolini or Frank Mulholland and asks them nicely for their permission to reveal the truth.

Labour have handled this really badly. Their own record, of course, on legal advice, is not exactly squeaky perfect. I'm sure we can all remember dramas over the Iraq War, after all. By using the "lie" word in this instance, they've given Salmond something to throw back at them. This needs to be about the overall strategy of the SNP and the fact that they tried to create an impression of something that was not the case and give themselves enough space to suggest that other people might have misunderstood them. It's pretty sleekit, when you come to think about it, and has left a massive hole in Salmond's credibility. People must not be allowed to forget this.

Ultimately, though, the question of the terms of an independent Scotland's entry into the EU owes as much to realpolitik as the letter of the law. How do we know? Well, it's been looked into before. David Clark was Robin Cook's Special Adviser between 1997 and 2001 and he has written on his blog, Shifting Grounds, about the advice on the issue that was obtained then.

In summary, Scotland would have no automatic right to be admitted to the European Union as a successor state, although it is possible that it could be negotiated. The price, however, might be substantial?

First, there is no existing procedure for handling a breakaway from an EU member state. The Council of Ministers would therefore need to improvise one according to its own design.

Second, an independent Scotland could either be considered a successor state, inheriting the United Kingdom’s rights and status, or a new applicant, but would have no automatic right to the former. A political decision would have to be taken by the Council of Ministers acting unanimously.

So, one veto and we're scuppered.


Clark's analysis of  the likely negotiating process makes it sound a bit like trying to herd 27 cats each with its own unique cocktail of sour grapes and self interest. He argues that an independent Scotland would not be negotiating from a position of strength.

I personally have no doubt that Scotland would be allowed to join the EU. But I also have no doubt that the price would be a high one. Spain would be the first country to object to Scotland automatically inheriting the UK’s rights and status. It would be determined to prove that separatism doesn’t pay in order to deter its own secessionist movements in Catalonia and the Basque country. Other countries, similarly concerned to avoid any precedent that might compromise their own integrity, would be certain to support the Spanish position.

They would also be joined by a larger group of countries that have long resented the UK’s opt outs and budget rebate and would relish the opportunity to deny them to Scotland. Like a new applicant, they would insist on Scotland accepting the full range of EU obligations on things like the single currency, border controls and budget contributions.

You will have to read the article yourself to see his rather surprising conclusion. Even if Alex Salmond were prepared to sell out to that extent, keeping his party and a fair chunk of those who support independence behind him would be a challenge. Of course, he wouldn't have to declare his hand until after the vote, but I'm sure that won't stop people asking him the question before then.

Secretive SNP's double standards on legal advice

It won't be long before some nationalist comes along and accuses me of smearing the SNP. That's what tends to happen when you disagree with them or point out that they may be guilty of saying one thing and doing another.

This week, they are blowing our hard earned taxes on fighting a ruling by Scotland's Information Commissioner. Labour MEP Catherine Stihler asked them if they had taken any legal advice on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU. The SNP argue that Scotland would have the same rights, the same opt outs on the Euro, and would automatically be part of the EU. They have not provided one shred of evidence to back that up. Their position seems fanciful at best in light of the comments of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who said that all new states would have to apply to join and be accepted by the others.

SNP ministers have refused to even tell us if they have any legal advice. You can read the Information Commissioner's ruling in full here. It's important to point out that the Commissioner says that if they did have that advice, at this point in the policy formulation process, they would be entitled to keep that secret for the moment. However, as the Referendum gets closer,that information could be very relevant to the debate.

The Commissioner is aware that the Scottish Government is committed to a referendum on the matter of Scottish independence. In her view, the question of whether independence will result in Scotland automatically remaining a member of the EU, or automatically being excluded and having to apply for membership, could have a bearing on how people vote in the referendum, depending on how they view the consequences of either of these outcomes.

In the Commissioner's view, the disclosure of legal advice on this matter could, if it existed and was held by the Ministers, inform the public in making their choice in a referendum, and in participating in the referendum debate.

However, although the contents of such advice could remain secret for the moment, the Commissioner ruled that there was no reason for ministers to refuse to tell us if it existed.

On balance, the Commissioner is not satisfied in this case that it would be contrary to the public interest for the Ministers to reveal whether the legal advice requested by Ms Stihler exists or is held by them. In particular, and as noted above, the Commissioner considers that there is a strong public interest in enabling scrutiny and better understanding of the procedure followed by the Ministers in their policy development processes.

Consequently, the Commissioner concludes that the Ministers were not entitled to refuse to reveal whether the requested information exists or is held by them in terms of section 18(1) of FOISA. The Commissioner has set out below the steps which she now requires the Ministers to take as a result of this conclusion.

I find it extraordinary that the SNP are defying the Information Commissioner and appealing her decision in Court. It's bad PR if nothing else. It looks like they're trying to hide something, especially when they're refusing to publish the Risk Register on independence and to gag a parliamentary committee at the same time.

If the SNP were in charge of an independent Scotland, clearly information would only be released on a need to know basis, with them deciding who needed to know. However, they didn't always think that way. Way back in 2005, Alex Salmond was insistent that the Labour Government should release its legal advice on Iraq.

No doubt nationalists will come up with some reason why there should be one rule for others and another for them. No doubt they'll dismiss me as some unionist harridan with an axe to grind, but they certainly can't do that with Kate Higgins, who supports independence, is actively campaigning for it and is doing all she can to up the quality of the debate. Last month, in a post called Just because you're paranoid, she wrote:

This is not how good government works.  Nor is it the way to gain the trust of the people in what will be the biggest political decision of their lives.

If the SNP Government wants the people of Scotland to trust them enough to vote yes to independence, they need to rediscover the spring in their step of the earliest days of government and put an end to this creeping fog of paranoia, suppression, fear and nervousness.

 I had been hoping that Nicola Sturgeon, now in charge of independence related matters, would have brought some sense to bear on this one. She and Angela Constance between them tend to have more common sense than all the rest of the SNP ministers put together and I just can't imagine why they would think that the secrecy would be a good idea.

An e-mail from Nick Clegg and an FU from Douglas Carswell

Two things which interested me from this afternoon.

First, an e-mail Nick Clegg has sent to party members on the European summit shenanigans:

Dear Caron,

Support for Europe has always been a cornerstone of what our party stands for. Recent days have been tough for pro-Europeans in our country, but I am clear that it is in Britain’s national interest to remain at the heart of Europe.

As I have made clear since Friday, I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, which ended with the UK in a minority of one. There is now a real danger that over time the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the EU and as a consequence, our influence in the world will shrink. That is not good for jobs and growth; and will do nothing for struggling families across the country.

There is no doubt that we were in a difficult position because of the refusal to compromise from some member states and the eurosceptics in the Conservative Party. It was clear that some combination of guarantees on the operation of the single market, including in financial services, was necessary if we were going to ensure the safe passage of the package through Parliament. I regret the negotiations failed to arrive at a compromise, as I had hoped.

It is important that we now look to the future. That's why I, as a Liberal Democrat in this Coalition Government will do everything I can to make sure that this setback does not become a permanent divide. I am determined that we redouble our leadership on things like the single market, the environment, foreign policy, and defence - all the things that we need to do at a European level.

All my political life I have believed that Britain is stronger, better, greater when we lead and when we stand tall in Europe. Now, more than ever, we need a strong Liberal Democrat voice inside government making this case.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister


I accept that it would be completely counter-productive for Nick to send out an e-mail that was directly critical of Cameron. I'm happy to say that I think Cameron executed the plan badly,  but I'll never be working in his Government. I feel that the e-mail needs to connect a bit more, to give more practical examples of the damage that could be done as a result of our isolation. I think it should have repeated the "bulldog" line from yesterday: "there is nothing bulldog in hovering in the mid Atlantic...". The punchiness and sense and voice of reason that came across yesterday on Marr only partially comes across in this. 


Why can't they put a link to the iPlayer of Nick on Marr?  Why not have him shoot a You Tube clip with an iPhone? I just think that they could have livened it up a bit.


It's quite important as well that they deal with the attack lines people are likely to get on the doorstep from the other parties and this e-mail does nothing to deal with the "Incredible Sulk" and talking Britain down nonsense we're getting in the Daily Fail at the moment. I mean, Nick talking Britain down? From a paper that portrays us a nation of drug addled, violent, lascivious, benefit scrounging feral savages? 


And, finally, there was an apostrophe missing from "last week's". I literally couldn't allow that to appear on here. The hives it brought out in me are just fading now.


The second thing is something that really made me giggle. Just before Cameron's statement, the BBC News Channel interviewed Tory Euro-sceptic Douglas Carswell and Labour's Keith Vaz. Carswell kept going on about the moves to fiscal union which he kept referring to as the FU. Whatever your politics, it was an amusing moment. That brightened an afternoon when my lurgy, which has long outstayed its welcome, has been asserting itself on my sinuses.

Alex Salmond complains bitterly to Cameron over EU veto - but fails to say what he would have done

So, Alex Salmond has written  a snippy letter of complaint to Prime Minister David Cameron over his use of the veto which left the UK in a minority of one.

It took him 3 days to work out how to play this which is highly unusual for him.  I was only saying to my dad yesterday that I was surprised that we hadn't had the SNP jumping up and down about this. It's clearly taken them a while to work out the best line for them. As usual, they've criticised the UK Government, but have given their customary lack of detail as to what Salmond would have done as leader of an independent Scotland.

He's clearly hedging his bets. He doesn't want to admit that he'd have gone off with the 26, because that might not play well with people, so he's just doing his usual opportunistic thing. It would be a lot more helpful if he would outline how he, as leader of an independent Scotland (not that that's a foregone conclusion by any manner of means), would have conducted relations with Europe in a different way. To be honest, I reckon if Cameron had struck a deal with the other countries, he'd have had a similarly irritable letter from Salmond to deal with today. Just cos that's what Salmond does - huff and puff about everything that he thinks can advance his independence agenda.

Scottish Liberal Democrat president Malcolm Bruce had Salmond bang to rights, saying that the SNP couldn't even tell us what currency an independent Scotland would have. I just can't help feeling that if they had the details, they would share them with us. They know they can't offer any guarantees, so they just paint this picture about how idyllic life would be in an independent Scotland without any substance to back  it up. Truth is, life is pretty darned hard for the global economy at the moment. The outlook is bleak and so the international community needs to work together as much as possible to try to resolve things.

Malcolm was really good on Good Morning Scotland this morning talking about the issues around the EU summit. He is a robust performer on the media and he wasn't letting Gary Robertson away with anything. You can hear the whole interview here from around 1:09. He very clearly set out the party's position that we want to have good relations with Europe, we'll seek to deliver that in Government and that the Coalition was not in danger. He pointed out that the EU was not perfect, something recognised by the most passionate supporters of the EU within the party.

Nick Clegg didn't attack David Cameron for what happened in Brussels, contrary to what most of the papers are saying. He said he thought the outcome of the summit was bad for Britain. I'm quite happy to complain about Cameron, though. Our PM does not perform well putting his case in these sorts of conditions as we saw during the leaders' debates in 2010. He went in with a poorly framed plan with no back up position. I would have much preferred Nick Clegg, who has solid international negotiating experience behind him, in there, but that wasn't going to happen. The French and Germans were too caught up in the still unresolved eurozone crisis to be bothered accommodating him. There were faults on both sides, for sure, but the outcome is not good for us as a country and we need to sort it.

I was thoroughly amused to see the Daily Fail this morning accuse Nick of talking the country down. A bit rich coming from a paper who's continually writing about what a bunch of drug addled, violent, benefit scrounging, feral savages we all are.

Most of the mainstream media, from the Daily Mail to the BBC, is not being entirely accurate about the Lib Dems' position - which makes it important for us to make sure that our members and campaign teams on the ground are properly informed in plain and simple terms.

Nick Clegg: I will fight for British jobs and interests after "bad for Britain" summit

For the second Sunday in a row, I got up to see Nick Clegg on the Andrew Marr Show.

I think Liberal Democrats have been in shock this weekend, trying to make sense of the shenanigans of the Brussels summit which have left us, at least temporarily, isolated in Europe.

On Friday, I just threw myself into frenzied spate of cleaning, tackling both behind the sofa and the rabbit hutch on the same day, simply as displacement activity so I didn't have to think of the ramifications of it all because I was so upset by it.

By yesterday, every time I thought of David Cameron, I couldn't get rid of the thought of him in his jammies singing "All by myself" like Bridget Jones does. And, frankly, Bridget doesn't quite think that being all by herself is quite how she wants to spend her life.

I didn't expect Nick to come out with all guns blazing and call Cameron for everything. It's just not his way. His focus will have been on how to retrieve the situation - and if he wants Cameron to listen to him, he has to moderate his language. I tweeted my way through the live broadcast, and the results are below, but the main points are:

• what happened on Friday is bad for Britain
• what David Cameron was asking for was modest and reasonable
• Britain's standing in the world depends on us being seen as a leader within the EU
• there is no case for a referendum on Europe
• we must take opportunities to exert UK influence in coming months
• "I will fight for UK long term interests so jobs and growth not threatened"

I completely stuffed up the reporting of one quote from him, so I'll do it properly here. While he showed understanding for David Cameron's position, "I'm not under the same constraints from my parliamentary party as he is," he had a right go a the Eurosceptics:

 Eurosceptics are spectacularly misguided. Nothing bulldog about Britain hovering in mid Atlantic, isolated and not taken seriously

I think Nick got the tone absolutely right this morning - calm, reasonable, and with an attitude of "let's get this sorted".  If I had any criticism at all, I think he needs to counter the bulldog bile with some more really practical, everyday examples of how our daily life could be affected if we don't sort this out.

Nick's credentials at international negotiation are second to none. He's negotiated with China on behalf of the EU and he knows Europe backwards. We saw during the leaders' debates that Cameron doesn't perform well in a high pressure situation when he's trying to put his case and Thursday night was a spectacularly bad day for him. If Cameron has any sense at all, he'll listen to Nick's advice on how to fix this. 

It's more important than ever that the Coalition stays together, otherwise the right wing Tory eurosceptics will win and xenophobia and isolation will become the norm for this country.

Anyway, here are my tweets from Nick's appearance on Marr. I'll put up the iPlayer link when it's available.

Nick Clegg stands up for human rights in Belarus and warns of divisions in EU

Nick Clegg has a piece in the Independent today in which he outlines the abuses of human rights carried out by the Government of Belarus.

This Summer, after protesting was banned by the Government (which, by the way, shut down social networks in much the way certain people were calling for here during the riots), people took to the streets and applauded as Ruth Collins reported on the Huffington Post. An ingenious idea, which was soon met with a ban on applause.

I like the fact that Nick is using pretty strong language, not the sort you often find in diplomatic circles, and is encouraging the EU to stand up against what's going on on its doorstep.

"If we are learning anything from events across the Arab world... it's this: you cannot deny people their rights and freedoms forever. Not in today's world," he will say. "Not when the forces of youth, technology and economic grievance are colliding to drive change across the globe. Pushing the oppressed and forgotten to find their voice. You cannot rig an election, squash dissent, destroy liberty, run an economy into the ground, without, eventually, paying the price."

Last week at the Guardian debate at Lib Dem Conference, both Vince Cable and Paddy Ashdown talked of the dangers of the current economic crisis leading to wars and nationalism as it did in the 30s. Paddy in particular talked of the importance of strengthening global alliances and governance, not stepping back into our own wee corners.

Nick carries on this theme in his speech today to European leaders in Poland:

..as we look back at the end of the Soviet Union, a moment when all Europeans watched with both awe and unease as old certainties vanished, we are again at a turning point in our history.

Now, as then, Europeans face a choice: drift apart, retreat to our corners, and undo the work of those who came before us; or, amidst the rubble of the current strife, find each other once more - a united European Union, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our partners in the East; standing together for the sake of our common good.

This is all very sensible stuff. Am I wrong to take pleasure in that it will also make Bill Cash and his mates on the rabidly Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party froth at the mouth?

Breaking News: Another Lib Dem win - fuel duty to be cut in remote islands

Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government have achieved what Labour couldn't be bothered doing and the SNP just weren't interested in helping out with - a cut in fuel duty in the most remote communities.

Tim Reid from the BBC has just said on Twitter

This is a good start. This won't help those far flung communities in Galloway or Sutherland or Wester Ross where, believe me, having a car is essential, but let's hope that there will be further applications.

This is something Scottish Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon has been working on and campaigning for ever since he was elected in 2009.

This will hopefully result in a 5p per litre cut in petrol and diesel prices.

Already Lib Dem island MPs have welcomed this decision. Alistair Carmichael said:

This is the single most important step on the road towards reducing the cost of petrol and diesel in the Isles. “I am delighted that we have got this consent and hope that the remaining hoops will be a formality to jump through. “This is Liberal Democrats delivering in government what they promised in opposition.”

Shetland MSP Tavish Scott showed how this will help the communities:

“Last week, Shetland motorists endured a 4p rise in one day at some Island petrol stations. The difference between us and the mainland of Scotland is 20p.
 “Alistair Carmichael deserves credit for pushing this derogation so hard in the UK Government and it will help.
 “Shetland also needs a full inquiry into the monopoly that GB Fuels operates and the consequences of that on local prices. That is the next stage, and we need that action which recognises that the car is a necessity of life not a luxury in the Northern Isles.

 The European Council has to approve the change but that should just be a formality.

We know that this didn't happen with Labour in Government, and it certainly wouldn't with the Conservatives alone. This is another example of Liberal Democrats making a difference.

Beware the Tories' new best friends

The Tories have kept one Euro election promise - they have managed to form a new group in the European Parliament with the rag, tag and bobtail of social reactionaries across the continent.

The thing that binds these parties together is an ideological, dogmatic approach to Europe. They would rather member states preserved isolation at all costs rather than work together on the issues where it is both practical and sensible to do so - in financial regulation, crime and climate change being examples that spring to mind.

For all that David Cameron tries to make out that the Tories are born again fluffy, cuddly and tolerant, their new best friends have very different approaches.

Take, for example, the rampantly homophobic Polish Law and Justice Party, whose leader thinks that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers and that "The affirmation of homosexuality will lead to the downfall of civilization. We can't agree to it".

And that's just the icing on the cake. The Independent on Saturday contained this article which outlined a few of the rather bizarre policies of members of the new group - from thinking that women shouldn't stand for Parliament to some horribly racist campaigns particularly against Islam.

It's relevant as well that Cameron's move has taken him out of step with people like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, who he will have to negotiate with if he were ever to become PM. I wonder what they think of him taking off and playing house with that bunch of xenophobic bigots. I can't imagine for a minute his actions will do much for his credibility and again the UK will find itself as the laughing stock of Europe.

LibDig This!

Conversations with Nick Clegg - Part 2

Nick gets passionate about justice, reducing crime and the EU.



Good to see that the European Elephant has been welcomed into the room. We've spent too many European elections when our campaign strategy has been to avoid talking about it as much as possible. We've come out this time quite bullish about how essential it is that we should work together with our neighbours on issues like crime, trade, jobs and climate change. There's no point in trying to tackle international crime or global warming on our own - we need the sort of co-operation with our neighbours that the Tories can't even begin to imagine. We won't get anywhere with their isolationist view.

LibDig This!

Lib Dems call for withdrawal of European Baby Bottle Poster

I'm glad to see that the Lib Dems have called for the withdrawal of the EU election poster featuring a baby bottle to represent the family that I blogged about on Friday. The press release from Andrew Duff, leader of the Lib Dems in the EU said:

"In documentation designed to promote the European elections in June this year the European Union has produced postcards which undermine World Health Organisation, UK health guidance and the European Blueprint for Action, all of which promote breastfeeding by associating a baby bottle as an appropriate image of a family.

Andrew Duff MEP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on the European Union said: 'This image is not suitable to portray a family, other images could have been used, even a picture of a family. All agencies agree that breatfeeding is the best start for babies, yet this postcard undermines the work of all these organisations.'

Numerous Liberal Democrat campaigners including Sal Brinton, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Watford are supporting Andrew Duff's stance, 'So many organisations have worked so hard to increase breastfeeding rates, it is ridiculous that to promote one election, the European Union have decided to portray the choice between family and work in this way. This advert should be withdrawn.'

Arwen Folkes, Managing Director of Real Baby Milk says: 'The use of this image is thoughtless and careless. Especially when you consider the sterling work that so many professionals and volunteers are currently undertaking. We are all working hard to change negative social perceptions of breastfeeding and to properly inform and support mothers to give human milk to their babies and thereby improve the health of future generations. The use of this image by a body such as the European Union sadly perpetuates the cultural assumption that bottle feeding is the normal way to feed babies. I sincerely hope that it can be withdrawn in time.'"

Those of you on Facebook can show your support for this stance by joining the group Europe - Baby Bottles do not represent the Family

LibDig This!

EU Leaders agree the bleedin' obvious

And locks will be fitted to the stable doors as the horses disappear over the horizon.

'Strewth!

LibDig This!