For what we are about to give up, may we be truly nervous...

Malta is the smallest Member State of the European Union, just 122 square miles in area, with a population of about 400,000, on the frontier between Europe and Africa. On its own, fairly insignificant, especially now that there is peace in Europe and the North African states pose little threat. But the Maltese mostly agree that membership of the European Union is a good thing.

Our taxi driver on Thursday evening noted that, prior to joining, Maltese emigration was to the distant Commonwealth - Canada and Australia, as well as the United Kingdom. Now, young Maltese can travel to Europe in search of opportunity. And the reverse is true. Our Dutch tour guide, whose partner she described as her Maltese knight, or our Estonian waiter in Mdina, who had come with his girlfriend to gain an experience of another culture and whose parents had already moved to Malta.

For what they have is freedom, the freedom to explore new cultures, to meet new people and, perhaps, fall in love with them, to have a choice of where they might put down roots, raise a family, build a career or launch a business.

It is that freedom that the referendum vote risks taking away from our young people.

I accept that, if you are happy and settled where you are, or even unhappy and fearful for your prospects, the idea of upping sticks and moving somewhere where they speak another language, or have different customs might seem entirely irrelevant. But even if you don’t intend to use the rights you have, one wonders why you might be so relaxed about taking them away from others, especially if there is no obvious loss to you if they do use them.

It’s a bit like holding an entire generation hostage in order to quell your fears.

Of course, you have to appreciate that there is a risk of loss, and I keep hearing stories of people who voted for Brexit, knowing that they intended to retire to Cyprus, or Spain, assuming that the ending of freedom of movement was only directed into the United Kingdom - it wouldn’t affect them. It’s that good old fashioned (predominantly) English exceptionalism at play again.

My patriotism is that of someone who believes that my country is a good one, able to influence world affairs, outward-looking and confident, but it seems that it’s a form of patriotism that is out of fashion. The preferred versions being either a more fearful one, where foreigners are a threat or a burden, or a delusional one, where the world owes us not only a living, but a whole bunch of privileges that we need not reciprocate.

I fear that our nation will find out the hard way that neither is sustainable in a multilateral world where trading blocs negotiate with each other rather than with individual nations, and where specialisation allows more effective use of scarce resource.

Of course, we could always change our minds, but as I noted yesterday, the route to a second referendum is a tortuous one, and time, and the European Union’s patience, is beginning to run out...

Time to hold Azerbaijan to account for its maltreatment of its LGBT community

The news that members of the LGBT community in Azerbaijan are being rounded up and held in detention on what appears to be entirely spurious grounds triggers the obvious concern that events in Chechnya, where gay men are being hunted down and killed, are spilling over into other parts of the Caucasus. In response, members of the Federal International Relations Committee have drafted a resolution to be considered at the ALDE Party Congress in Amsterdam, calling for action.

It has to be said that, usually, I would leave such things to those more expert than I am. On this occasion though, I have intervened.

For, interestingly, the European Union is in the midst of negotiating a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan and whilst I do wonder about the wisdom of signing such an agreement with a country whose leadership are alleged to be pretty corrupt, with a 'first family' who are seem to be incredibly successful in their business deals, it does open up a route through which the Azeri government might be persuaded to mend their ways.

And so, I proposed, and had accepted, the following additional clause under "Congress call for";

A suspension on talks between the European Union and Azerbaijan on the proposed agreement on a strategic partnership until the rights and freedoms of all citizens of Azerbaijan are fully restored.

One of the whole points of being a player on the world stage, and the European Union aspires to being just that, is to use our influence to change things for the better. if Azerbaijan feels that a partnership with the European Union is valuable, it will change its ways. If the European Union believes that its values mean more than just fine words, it will seek change in Azerbaijan in return for that partnership.

Our values as Europeans are important, and not conditional. Liberty should apply to those whose activities do not cause hurt or offence to others, and this is a concept that needs defending, not compromising.

Hopefully, some external pressure will send a message to the Azeri leadership that they can't get away with mistreating their citizens.

I'm not really Charlie, it's perhaps a little more complicated than that...

First, violence is never a justified response to satire, no matter how unpleasant one might find the material personally. That is, if you like, the easy bit, given that we live in a society that has determined that violence, whether committed by individuals or the State, is inappropriate except in self-defence.

My problem is with the 'right to offend' argument. I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech, but wonder why it is deemed appropriate to wilfully offend an entire community for having a world view that is different to yours simply for having that view. That hardly indicates a respect for diversity within your community, quite the reverse in fact. Perhaps, to be accurate, my problem is with the 'necessity to offend' and the accuracy of the targeting of that offence.

My family, or at least that on my paternal side, is part of a small religious minority in a city which has seen more than its fair share of sectarian, religion-based violence in recent years. Clashes between Hindu fundamentalists and the sizeable Muslim community in Mumbai have led to violence and death, and the attacks on the city by the Islamist terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2008 did little to enhance trust on either side. So, perhaps, I am more sensitive than most about the notion of poking a community with a stick, just because you can in a free society.

In an increasingly interconnected world, material deemed offensive by a community can be shared and anger stoked up very quickly. That anger will express itself in ways that seem irrational to many of us, but are nonetheless predictable. And, if we have failed to fully integrate communities into our broader society, and make them feel inferior or threatened, such attacks feed fundamentalism and hostility towards the rest of us.

So, feel free to offend if you choose to do so but remember, the consequences may fall upon someone entirely innocent, somewhere far away. It was undoubtedly tragic that so many people, all entirely undeserving, died in such a terrible, terrifying way, for nobody deserves to die for a cartoon. Unfortunately, somewhere far away, a small Christian community are probably wondering what might happen to them tomorrow, or the day after. Nobody in the West will spend much time mourning for them, there will be no hashtag. Likewise, Muslim communities around the world will feel exposed and unsettled simply because they adhere to their faith, and some will suffer, as has been demonstrated in France already. Some will stand by them, many I hope, for most Muslims are as horrified by events in and around Paris as the rest of us are.

In a liberal democracy, we have an obligation to respect our political opponents, whilst challenging their views or their actions. In a liberal society, we have an obligation to respect and defend all law-abiding, peaceful elements of our community, and not tar all members of a particular racial or religious group on the basis of the views or actions of a possibly unrepresentative minority.

The fanatic will always find an excuse to justify his barbarism, and we should not self-censor in the hope that we might dissuade them from violence. However, we should always ask ourselves if we are doing what is necessary to dissuade those tempted by fundamentalism from succumbing. I hope that, in declaring our faith in the right to freedom of expression, we remember that with freedom comes responsibility.

Equal marriage: an accidental bystander at a historic moment

Life, I am told, is mostly about being there. And, being married to Ros, I am fortunate in being slightly more likely to be there than most. Tonight, however, was one of those moments of pure, delightful, chance.

My visits to London are somewhat infrequent these days but, occasionally, I come to the big city for some social event or other, or to see my family. Today, it was for dinner with Ros and our guest. By sheer coincidence, I arrived just as the Lords divided on the Dear 'wrecking amendment', so I headed over to the rainbow festooned group to wish them good luck, making sure to say hello to the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats there. I then headed into Parliament to meet Ros.

Ros was on her way out though, to spread the news that the vote had been won, and clearly so too. And, soon enough, it was official, and the celebration could begin in earnest. We slipped away quietly, leaving our friends to savour a moment they have worked so hard towards.

It was a special moment, made even more satisfying by the fact that the person I love was able to make her contribution towards making it happen.

Never let it be said that there is no emotion in politics...

Scottish Independence: what are the chances of an honest debate?

It's an awfully long way from mid-Suffolk to the Scottish border, about five and a half hours by train, but as the son of a Scot, I take a passing intellectual interest in the debate that so dominates all political discussion up there.

So, let me nail my colours to the mast. If the Scottish people, however defined, decide that their desire for freedom is such that it can only be exercised through an independent state, it is not for the rest of us to say that they can't.

However, there is a catch. A free nation is also a community of informed citizens, called upon to make decisions on the basis of rather tricky things called 'facts'. And, rather disappointingly, I'm not entirely convinced that facts are going to be a core part of the debate.

You see, freedom costs. Oh yes, the alternatives aren't cost-free either, but there is a price to be paid. Often, where people seek independence, there is a cost in blood and treasure but, at least in this instance, blood is unlikely to be spilt. But there will be financial implications, and the pro-independence campaigners seem keen to avoid that issue thus far.

In strategic terms, that's probably quite sensible, as the issue is fearsomely complex. Which currency will an independent Scotland adopt? The Euro? The Pound? Will it go it alone? The first two options mean a pooling of sovereignty, the first through Brussels - and wildly popular that's proving to be, isn't it? - the second through London - you are kidding, aren't you? The third option leaves the new nation more vulnerable to the currency markets than most, but does offer the broadest range of monetary and fiscal tools. Each option comes with risks, each needs to be properly assessed.

International relationships are important too. Yes, Scotland would get a seat in the United Nations, but would have to apply for a place in the European Union. In the meantime, vast swathes of European Union legislation, directives and regulatory frameworks would be effectively imposed by fax from Brussels - ask the Norwegians what that means - hardly the independence that is supposedly on offer. In the modern era, sovereignty is increasingly pooled, be it within a federal state, or (whisper it quietly) a federal union. Independence is not necessarily what one thinks it is any more.

Finally, the terms of a 'divorce settlement'. I was interested to hear Angus Robertson, the SNP's Parliamentary Leader at Westminster, claiming that it was unfair that Scotland was not getting its fair share of UK defence spending. He ought to be more wary about arguments like that, especially as Scotland is perceived to have benefited from some quite generous provision in other areas, including disproportionate levels of public sector employment.

But if there is a separation, there will be a slice of the national debt to be agreed, and then serviced, there will be assets to be divided up, contracts to be honoured. The definition of a fair division will be a very difficult one - who gets the debt relating to bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland, for example.

It will undoubtedly be a tough negotiation, with both parties keen to get the best deal possible for their people, but amongst the range of possibilities are some pretty grim ones for Scots - potentially huge deficits in the short term, likely austerity in any event. There are rosier scenarios but, in the context of the current state of the United Kingdom economy, rosy is merely a paler shade of grey.

The real debate is a complex one, and the question is not just, "Do you want to be free?", but, "How much are you willing to sacrifice for it?".

And that's a question that the rest of us need to give some thought to as well. What deal are we, the English, the Welsh and the (Northern) Irish, willing to countenance? As pro-Union political parties, we have to be rather more upfront about the answer, and rather more transparent about the data.

The Scottish people deserve the very best that politicians on either side of the debate can offer, in terms of rhetoric and in terms of integrity. Whilst making an unwise call in terms of a vote for independence, if unwise it turns out to be, has an obvious, visible cost, remaining in a Union which holds Scotland back, if it does, will be a hidden burden on a proud people.

And let the Scots decide!

Anyone would think that there was a problem with freedom

I'm intrigued by all the talk from the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee of banning the sale of cheap alcohol.

Admittedly, I have come to expect such an attitude from Labour, and it is entirely consistent with their philosophy that government knows what is best for us. However, the Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. Why?

1. They claim to believe in the free market. So why do they think that it is right to tell retail outlets what price they should set for their product?
2. They claim to believe in a smaller state. So why are they creating extra regulation, leading to an increase in the need for people to police it? Or are they suggesting that police and/or trading standards officers should give up other work to deal with it?
3. They claim to believe in personal responsibility. So why don't they trust us to regulate our own behaviour - or face the consequences?

Now I don't claim that I am a libertarian, but I do think that we should punish an act that is illegal, not an act that isn't. There is no evidence to suggest that just because I have a few beers, I am likely to go out and punch someone, and I like to think that the people I choose to spend my time with are similarly unlikely to do so. However, if they do commit a crime, I expect them to be punished in a manner which satisfies our definition of justice.

On the other hand, it seems somewhat suspect to claim that you are a libertarian yet call for a ban of the sale of cheap booze by supermarkets. At least I can safely assume that Liberal Vision will be considering such stances when judging our MPs on their liberalism next time. That said, given that it's gone awfully quiet over there since Bournemouth, one wonders if there'll be a next time...