This, apparently, means nothing to me...

Alright, so here I am in a surprisingly hip hotel close to an airport - indeed, it’s called Moxy - so evidently I am off somewhere. And that is indeed true, although exactly where will have to wait until tomorrow. For now though, I am in Vienna, the city of the waltz, of coffee culture, and of one of the best political jokes ever.

A man is in a Viennese cafe and, turning to his friend, says, “I hear that there’ll be a revolution in Russia soon.”. His friend scoffs, “And who’s going to start that then, Herr Lenin and Herr Trotsky sitting in the corner there?”.

In the past, I found Vienna to be slightly unsettling. There was always that vague impression that a squad of soldiers, wearing black, might march around the corner at any moment. Fortunately, those days are over, although Austrian politics is, to be put it politely, a mite on the right-wing side at the moment.

There are, at least, some liberals, courtesy of NEOS, whose leaders I first met over dinner in Brussels. I rather liked Mathias and Angelika, and I still do. They, and their party, are adamantly pro-European, internationalist and liberal, and they do attempt to make politics both fun and professional. Campaigning in the 2014 European Parliamentary elections on a slogan “We Love Europe”, would have been unimaginable at home, which perhaps explains why we lost the 2016 referendum.

And sadly, it is a reminder of what we will probably lose. I am a European to my fingertips, an internationalist of the heart, a believer in the seemingly fanciful notion that, in a complex world, working in harmony with other nations is a good idea. And whilst I am sympathetic to the idea of fighting Brexit to the last ditch, I fear that with a Government too unimaginative to change course, and an Official Opposition led by a man who believes that a new Jerusalem (ah, perhaps the wrong city there) can only be built outside the European Union, there is little prospect of salvation any time soon.

For we will go off the cliff in a year’s time. The only question is, how far is the drop, and how painful will the landing be? And, sadly, the damage will be all the worse for the lack of competence demonstrated by those leading the negotiations. It will be for historians to catalogue the events that follow, and for economists to write their theses on how Britain chose the path that it did.

As for me, I’m doing something vaguely useful, i.e. finding out what life looks like from outside the European Union, and attempting to make some new political friends. Wish me luck...

Catalan Referendum: a view from no-man's land

The images emerging from Catalonia today should trouble all of us, especially given the link between  liberalism and self-determination.

You could, and I probably would, argue that both sides have been particularly uncompromising in their approach, but independence battles tend to encourage such an attitude - after all, there have been precious few examples of states gaining sovereignty through negotiation alone. But the responses of both sides have led to today's scenes of riot police attacking and wounding those Catalans who fervantly believe that their lands are better off in a free Catalonia.

I am a believer in the principle of peaceful self-determination. In a civilised and rational world, power is assigned to the most appropriate level, devolved downwards where possible, pooled if necessary. The idea of the wholly sovereign nation state is almost absurd given the interrelationships of trade and migration.

You could therefore wonder why Catalan independence matters. What would a free Catalonia be or do that it can't already do within the context of the Spanish variable devolution model? And, likewise, what benefit is it to Spain to impose its central diktat over a people who possibly don't want to be a part of it?

Ultimately, it comes down to two things, emotion and economic advantage. Sometimes, as in the case of Scotland, you use the former to gloss over the fact that the latter isn't in your favour. In the case of Catalonia, that's not quite so clear cut, although I can't claim to have quite as much knowledge of the Catalan economy as I do of the Scottish one.

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, there is an uncomfortable contradiction in play. Some of my colleagues are enthusiastic supporters of the Catalan cause - and I respect that. However, given the Party's stance on the Scottish independence question, one might wonder as to the consistency of the two views. Perhaps romance trumps pragmatism when you have no economic skin in the game...

But the heavy-handed stance of the Spanish authorities will not do anything to change minds. It is all well and good to rely on the "rule of law" but those who seek freedom are seldom deterred by mere administrative process. I can't help but feel that, if Madrid is so confident in its position, offering the Catalans a binding referendum requiring a supermajority of eligible voters would have provided a definitive outcome.

Today's referendum will, ultimately, determine nothing. Given the call from Spanish political parties for their supporters to stay away from the polls, a yes vote is likely. As it has no legal status, the Spanish Government can, and will, disregard it. Yes, it puts pressure on the ruling parties in government, but they will be reminded that, for the majority of Spanish voters, Catalonia is Spain. It is an existential matter for the Spanish State.

From a wider European perspective, there are interesting challenges ahead. In the ALDE Party, for example, there are Catalan and Spanish member parties, on opposite sides of the argument. Managing those relationships will be challenging, if the debate spills over, seeking to have the ALDE Party take a side. The ALDE Party Congress, which takes place in Amsterdam in early December, may be fractious...

Nick Tyrone - taking hyperbole to an epoch-defining low...

It is not often that I am moved to criticise a fellow Liberal Democrat blogger. Generally speaking, if I join in, you've probably stretched the envelope of acceptable behaviour or attacked someone I love. However, on this occasion, I'm making an exception.

In his 'interesting' posting on the ALDE Group's entanglement with the Five Star Movement, he describes the decision of the Parliamentary Group to reject the proposed entry of the Beppe Grillo led group as 'an epoch defining act of stupidity'. One might argue as to whether it was the right call or not, and there are arguments either way, but come now, Nick, epoch defining to reject a party that has no clear philosophical basis except whatever Beppe thinks when he gets up in the morning? Methinks one protests too much.

And whilst Nick claims to spent time around ALDE and other European liberal parties, and I have no reason to doubt that, he may not be talking to the people I talk to as a member of the ALDE Party Council. I am more than aware of the accusations of fake news generation that whirl around M5S, and of their views regarding the Euro and the future of NATO. Indeed, the proposed deal included a provision that their MEPs would be members of the ALDE Group but not bound by its whip, something which smacks of a 'marriage of convenience'.

Perhaps there was a prospect of a coming together of M5S and European liberal forces leading to an evolution of the former into a genuinely liberal party, and perhaps such an evolution will take place eventually. Personally, I've seen too many personality driven parties disintegrate once the key personality quits or implodes to be that confident, but one learns not to presume anything - something doubly true when considering Italian politics.

But there is no point admitting one dubiously liberal grouping only to lose a number of established ones in protest. ALDE is already a coming together of social liberal and economic liberal parties whose shared objectives outweigh the disagreements. Adding M5S to the mix would be one step too far for a number of them.

So, encourage M5S down a path towards a genuinely liberal grouping in Italy with an informal agreement to work together on issues where the agenda is a shared one by all means and, if they demonstrate that there is a potential place for them amongst the Liberal family, then fine, let's talk about some more formal relationship. But until then, the idea that you invite people to be the flag bearers for liberalism who oppose some of its core tenets for political advantage isn't an epoch defining act of stupidity, it's a demonstration that a political party has to maintain some core principles, lest it forget why it exists in the first place.

And finally, Nick suggests that, in his time spent around ALDE and other European liberal parties, the one thing he noticed again and again is a lack of understanding about how politics basically works. I disagree, obviously, because I'm one of those stupid European liberals he so disparagingly refers to. I might find myself wondering just how successful Nick's brand of politics is, given that there are seven ALDE Prime Ministers, and five Liberal Commissioners, and that the number of Nick Tyrones in government is how many exactly?

But he's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine. And I think that Nick needs, on some future occasion, to come to an ALDE Party Congress and meet some of the people I meet and talk to them. But as he loathes them - his words, not mine - I'm not sure that a meeting of minds is very likely. Perhaps becoming a member of the Five Star Movement and trying to influence them towards liberalism from the inside might be more palatable to him than spending time with his fellow liberals?

One moment, there were stars, the next... ALDE decide to walk on the mild side...

Well, that was quick, wasn't it? No sooner had Italy's Five Star Movement decided to proceed with applying to join the ALDE group in the European Parliament than the latter chosen not to accept them.

In retrospect, it feels like the right move. Whilst the proposed deal seemed to address a number of issues of mutual agreement, the unreliability of M5S and their, at best, unorthodox view of how media ethics should be applied, represented some serious red flags.

It was an interesting proposal though, with the two sides intended to commit to the promotion of policies such as the simplification of the Brussels bureaucracy, resolving the immigration emergency via a system of permanent relocation, the promotion of the green economy and the development of the digital economy together with more job opportunities. There wasn't too much there to concern the liberal family.

However, the lack of adherence to a Group whip was somewhat troubling, implying that ALDE were a flag of convenience serving to give M5S a route to greater influence within the European Parliament.

It would have potentially tied M5S to a position of being in favour of the European Union, some progress from their stance hitherto, and there is an argument which suggests that bringing the populists into the mainstream acts to defang them of their less appealing views. Some might argue though that, if you lie down with dogs, you risk getting fleas.

A brief discussion amongst members of the Federal International Relations Committee exposed some significant reservations, and the news that the deal had collapsed met with some approval when news broke just as the meeting was coming to an end this afternoon. It will indeed be interesting to see what the ALDE Party make of events, when they meet in Ljubljana in early June.

Ros in the Lords - Brexit: Environmental and Climate Change Policy

Returning from the summer Recess, Ros was back in action pretty quickly. As the former Chair of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Energy and Environment, you might have expected her to have something to contribute to a debate tabled by Kate Parminter...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for tabling today’s debate and giving the House an opportunity to debate an aspect of Brexit which was underdiscussed both during the referendum campaign and subsequently.

At the outset, it is worth reflecting on how far we have come in the last 40 years. Occasionally you still hear people of a certain age refer to London as “The Smoke”, which reminds us of what the air quality was like here in our capital just four decades ago. Many people who swam off Britain’s beaches will regale you with horror stories about doing the breaststroke through pools of raw sewage; just last week the Guardian published some pretty gruesome photographs of Blackpool beach 40 years ago, which showed just that. Standards of animal welfare have increased significantly, and measures to reduce the harmful effects of pesticides and fertilisers have had a significant impact.

However, of course there is still a lot to do. The World Health Organization recently warned that dozens of British cities were failing to meet air pollution standards and it is estimated that over 16,000 deaths in 2012 were caused by ambient pollution. Recently, 4.9% of bathing sites in the UK were revealed to have ​poor water quality. We are just beginning to understand the impact of tiny plastic microbeads in our oceans on marine ecosystems. The threat to native species from habitat destruction, alien species, or diseases such as ash dieback is very real. The State of Nature 2016 report found that more than 10% of species are at risk of extinction in the UK and nearly 60% have declined since 1970.

It seems to me that, in reflecting on how we have made the progress we have, we find the pointers to how we will deal with the challenges we have yet to face. It is true that some change has been effected by individuals and organisations who are motivated to do the right thing, and in some cases the power of public opinion alters behaviour. But overwhelmingly, public policy drives change, through fiscal instruments, regulatory measures or by using targets to alter behaviour.

The development of environmental policy in the European Union has taken place over the last 40 years and continues today. In doing so, it has revealed some of the many strengths—and, if we are honest, some of the weaknesses—of a common EU approach. However, it is based on the inarguable logic that most environmental issues are cross-border in character or impact, and are better addressed by co-operative action than unilaterally. The transboundary and sometimes global nature of many environmental issues means that a collective approach is either more efficient or simply essential to address them effectively. Obvious examples apart from climate change include the protection of migratory birds and air and water pollution.

The importance of the single market and its development has also given an impetus to create common EU rules, particularly for environmental and technical product standards, which enables benchmarking and target setting to take place. Negotiating common standards can allow a degree of environmental ambition which would not be available to individual Governments acting alone because of fears about short-term impacts on competitiveness. Common standards also inhibit the possibility of economic advantages accruing to those countries that have lower environmental standards. A further advantage of the EU system is that it has a range of legislative, funding and other policy measures which can work in combination, and of course EU environmental legislation is backed up by hard legal enforcement mechanisms of a kind that is rare in international agreements.

It is also true that the EU has several institutional advantages that other international fora lack. First, contrary to Eurosceptic myths, EU institutions make decisions on a democratic basis, through a process of debate and adoption by both the European Parliament and the Council, which gives them the authority to monitor, report back and enforce binding legislation. The requirement for member states regularly to report on progress has created a culture of transparency which allows citizens to see how their country is performing.

A practical example of that is air quality. Our Supreme Court ruled that the UK was in breach of the 2008 directive, which resulted in the UK Government publishing a new air quality plan last year. I am not ​convinced that British citizens would have known about the scale of the problem or that government would have done anything about it had we not been subject to EU law. Indeed, the breaching of EU quality regulations was cited by Zac Goldsmith as a reason not to extend Heathrow, which shows that even the most ardent Brexiteer is not above praying the EU in aid when it suits their argument.

In the debate about “taking control” very little has been said about what that means for the future of our environment. The outcome closest to where we are now, the so-called soft Brexit, leaves the UK outside the common fisheries and common agricultural policies. I argue that that is a mixed blessing. But both the birds and habitats directives and the bathing water directive would no longer apply, and those policies have provided the backbone of conservation in the EU and have generated significant improvements for species and habitats. Of course, if we were to maintain some sort of access to the single market, we would still have to comply with a whole raft of EU environmental legislation, while having no say in its creation.

However, it looks as though we are heading for hard Brexit, and there is a wide consensus that this will create identifiable and substantial risks to future UK environmental ambitions and outcomes. Either because of political ideology or necessitated by a damaged economy, there is a significant risk that environmental standards will be lowered to seek competitive advantage outside the EU.

As we move towards the date identified by the Prime Minister for triggering Article 50, we should be seeing much more clarity from the Government on the relative priority they intend to give to environmental issues. If the approach is, as we have heard, to keep all the legislation at the point of exit and then to review it as we go along, that seems perfectly sensible, as it will mean that we will not have immediate legal uncertainty and can debate individual elements as time goes on. However, it is worth reading the report, published today, from the House of Lords EU Select Committee, which shows that even this relatively straightforward-sounding approach is not as simple as one might think. In the longer run, there is no reason why we cannot adhere to EU standards, if that is what we agree, but of course we will then fall outside the legal enforcement mechanisms, so we would have to think about how we would do that.

What business needs above all is regulatory certainty, and ironically it is often the slow pace of getting agreement in the EU that provides that certainty. Things, once agreed, are not easy to change. There is now a significant period of uncertainty, which could go on for some years.

Taking control means taking responsibility. We now have to decide as a nation what sort of agriculture we want. Is it about the production of cheap food or do we continue to put value on the environment, landscape and animal welfare? And if we do, are the Government prepared to reframe financial support for farmers to sustain this? What sort of framework do the Government envisage for managing fisheries in a sustainable way, and how do they intend to work with our European neighbours to achieve this?​

The EU sub-committee which I chaired until May produced a report on regional marine co-operation which suggested that national Governments need to do much more in working together for the marine environment. I am afraid that the Government’s response to that was pretty tepid. They will need to rethink that because, outside the EU, that will be the only show in town. In any event, the WTO is about to start discussions on a global fisheries scheme, so taking control may not be as easy as it sounds. In addition, are we going to hold on to the principles enshrined in the habitats directives, and the targets for recycling and ending land-filling?

It seems to me that as we go forward, while we cannot expect detailed answers, especially today, from the Government on how they will tackle all these things, we should expect a sense of how they are going about it. Whom are the Government talking to? Whom are they consulting to identify the risks and opportunities as we go forward? Significantly, from the point of view of this House, how is Parliament to be involved?

Europe and the United Kingdom - a pause to reflect

It seems fair to suggest that we've just experienced one of the most depressing and disturbing campaigns in our nation's history. Ironically, the result is one of the least of my concerns in that sense, grim though it is if you're a liberal, internationalist sort of person.

No, with a 52-48 split, you can at least hold on to the possibility of 'buyer's remorse', although I personally wouldn't count on it. You can even entertain the hope that, when push comes to shove, either the European Union will panic and offer the United Kingdom concessions, or that the prime movers of Brexit will blink. Frankly, I'm not getting my hopes up there either. Gove and Johnson have painted themselves into a corner here, and whilst they may think that they can intellectualise their way out, the people they've persuaded aren't likely to be as forgiving, especially with Farage goading them to go further, move faster.

For me, there are worse developments from this campaign.

1. Migration and the re-emergence of 'acceptable racism'

Is migration an unalloyed good thing? Probably not, if you live in, say, Wisbech. Probably yes, if you live in a multicultural society where there is rather more opportunity, mobility and education. However, the political debate has been couched in terms of dealing with a problem, rather than taking a holistic view of the pluses and minuses. It was understandable that the Conservatives would treat it that way, after all, there has always been a minority in their ranks who see outsiders as the enemy. And, of course, they've spent more and more time trying to fend off the UKIP threat, perhaps not understanding that, by pandering to the extremists, you merely legitimise them.

But, increasingly, Labour have gone the same way. And yes, they risk losing a chunk of their support to UKIP too, given that they've similarly pandered, as the likes of Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham have demonstrated in their responses to yesterday's result. The old Labour Party might have seen it as an opportunity to call for an expansion of council house building, or for higher taxes to build new facilities, or a redistribution of public spending to achieve the same ends. But oh no, it's talking about 'what we do about migration'.

Nobody, well nobody relevant anyway, is talking about unrestricted migration. They never did, which is why we have immigration rules, vast swathes of them, that impact on individuals, on families, on business. Heavens, there are times when it seems like Parliament talks of little else.

But the whole idea of freedom of movement within the European Union was that it would be multi-directional, that economies that were doing well would be able to attract people from across Europe to do jobs that needed doing, skilled or unskilled. The expectation was that, as the emerging European economies grew through access to this huge market, their standards of living would improve making it less likely that they would travel and more likely that they could afford to buy our goods and services. A rising tide lifting all boats, if you like. It was about removing barriers and increasing freedom, something that liberals across Europe could support.

The British people have indicated what they think of that as a concept, one must assume. But then, they were given every reason to look darkly upon the idea, by the media, by politicians looking for popular support at the cost of their principles. In that sense, it feels good to be a Liberal Democrat this morning.

It doesn't feel anywhere near as good to be a foreigner in the United Kingdom this morning, I suspect. On my flight to Luxembourg this morning, one young woman said that she'd already been told to go home, doubtless related to her darker skin. And, whilst not all Leave supporters are racist, the ones that are have been emboldened by the result of the referendum to believe that their view is mainstream and, accordingly, acceptable. Outside of our urban centres, there will be a sense of unease amongst our minority communities, and even where voters opted to remain, there will still be an undercurrent of tension. And, for all of Boris's talk of confronting racism, he is a poster child for the easy option, and has to accept his share of the blame for what happens next in terms of community relations.

2. The Advertising Standards Authority isn't going to help you here...

£350 million per week for the NHS? No, that was never promised, says Nigel Farage, confronted with a picture of Boris Johnson standing next to a poster saying that, if you voted to leave, that's what you'd get. And, of course, Nigel never did promise that. He was happy not to deny it until after the vote, but then he wasn't part of the official Vote Leave campaign. It was Boris and Michael who promised that, even though they knew it not to be true.

Heavy restrictions on immigration? No, that isn't going to happen, says Dan Hannan. And, after all, he was promising the Asian community that it would be easier for family members in India, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, to come here to visit them. Dan believes that. Strange that he's a member of a political party that doesn't, but nonetheless, he does believe that. Nigel doesn't. He wants you to be scared of them, millions, billions of them coming here, taking your jobs, that sort of thing. He was, of course, lying about that. There is no credible prospect of Turkey joining the European Union, and given developments in Ankara, what prospects there ever were are diminishing fast.

No, we've learnt a valuable lesson here. If you tell enough lies, and you can find enough people willing to believe them, you can win an election, even when it is demonstrated that you've lied. And it's not because people are stupid, it's more that they're ill-informed or, more likely, uninformed. After all, who knew that this stuff mattered?

And how could you campaign against such seductive lies? The truth was multi-layered, complex, not conducive to Twitter-sized rebuttal. Let's be clear here, many pro-Europeans support the concept, not necessarily the actuality. Many of us wanted more democracy, more transparency, more accountability. Ironically, it was British Prime Ministers, amongst others, lest it be forgotten, who stood in the way of a more credible European body politic - subsidiarity was only ever words for too many national leaders. No, the lies, so easily told, were most effective. Winning mattered, apparently, rather more than what might happen next.

So, we are where we are. It's not necessarily where we thought we'd be, and one has a growing sense that it isn't where the Vote Leave leadership thought they would be either. The calls for informal talks (with whom exactly, over what precisely?) prior to submitting an Article 50 request, smack of bet hedging. Perhaps they always meant to use a Leave vote as a bargaining chip? But did those who voted Leave see it the same way? You'll pardon me if I'm unconvinced...

I'm a long marcher. I didn't join the Liberal Party in the expectation that it would sweep to power, nor do I expect the liberal cause to sweep the country in response to this referendum result. But change is often not what those driving it intend, so I'm going to wait and see how this plays out. And when the dust clears, we can start to fight for what we believe in.

In the meantime, we need some core principles to articulate. Here are my thoughts.

1. We believe that the United Kingdom is better off working with others to solve our common problems. That means being part of multinational groupings and, as necessary, pooling sovereignty to do so.

2. We believe in opportunity and freedom, and that in order to advance that, we may have to offer the same to others.

3. We believe that change has to come with consent, and that this means properly explaining what is being done in the name of the people.

I'm sure that other, cleverer, people can come up with something better, more thorough. But it feels right to me at this point, and it offers something for most people, which is better than the Punch and Judy stuff that seems so prevalent at the moment.

So, welcome to 2016...

As those you who know Ros and I on Facebook may have noticed, we saw in the New Year somewhat more dressed up than usual (certainly for me, at any rate...), at the Pier at Harwich. And yes, it was very nice, and I didn't drink too much champagne, and behaved like a moderately sensible person (but not too sensible, after all, there are standards to be maintained...).

It was nice to see that a lot of people seemed to be enjoying the New Year come in too, including my far-flung family, who cover twenty-one time zones. Indeed, I spent some time this morning online with my cousin Kim, in Auckland, catching up on family affairs, which was nice too.

Apparently, New Year's Day is a day for resolutions - I will do this, won't do that, you know the drill - but I don't have any in mind this time. Given my fairly catastrophic failure rate for resolutions in the past, that's probably a good thing.

But 2016 will be a busy year, with the wedding of my stepson Jamie to his partner Bethany scheduled for the autumn, and Ros off to who knows where in her capacity as an ALDE Vice-President (I may have to accompany her, you know, because...). Work will doubtless be busy, because it should be, and even though we don't have council elections here, planning for 2017 is already underway, so there'll be more liberal democracy to do.

The new country for the year will be Lithuania, as the Spring ALDE Council meeting will take place there. That will be country number sixty in my effort to visit more countries than I have had birthdays. Compared to the likes of Jonathan Fryer, however, I am a mere amateur...

So, 2016 beckons. With a likely European referendum in the autumn, it is unlikely to be dull politically, even if the tension caused by the closeness of the polls will be unsettling, both personally and for the British economy. As an investor, albeit on a small scale, I am risk-averse for the most part. The future status of the United Kingdom within the European Union wouldn't necessarily encourage me to invest. I can only hope that I am in a minority in that respect.

Time then, to buckle up for another rollercoaster of a year. Let's just hope that the result isn't as grim for my beliefs as 2015 was...

The newly-elected Vice-President of the @ALDEParty is... Baroness Ros Scott!

At the end of three days of intensive campaigning, it came down to a rather nerve-wracking final hour of the thirty-sixth Annual Congress of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE). Hands had been shaken, delegations lobbied and speeches made, and all that was left was the minor matter of the actual voting.

As I have previously noted, ALDE has a quirky voting system - first past the post with a twist - the twist being that voters must vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies. This can potentially lead to a situation whereby you are obliged to vote for a candidate you don't like much, simply to make up your slate. Failure to cast the right number of votes leads to the rejection of all of your choices - an unwelcome problem to have.

The first vote was for the Presidency, with voters given the choice of voting for Siim Kallas or Hans van Baalen. I had thought that it might be close, with both sides throwing caution to the wind in their attempts to persuade voters, but in the end, van Baalen won by a very clear margin indeed.

What did that mean for the Vice-Presidential race? Firstly, it meant an extra vacancy to be filled, meaning that there would be six winners, not five, as van Baalen was already a serving Vice-President himself. However, it meant that voters were faced with having to pick an extra candidate to support, although more prescient delegations had probably given the matter some thought anyway.

The next complication was the means of voting, an electronic voting pad which required each of the six votes to be cast separately, which offered boundless opportunities for confusion. However, eventually, the voting procedure was complete, and I took my place in a small room away from the congress hall with my fellow observers, one for each campaign.

It quickly became clear that there had been significant numbers of spoiled ballots - seventy-one out of four hundred and twenty-nine. Voters choosing the same candidate more than once, or not casting all six votes, meant that I was wondering, "Have our voters got it right?". The numbers were announced for each candidate, each observer confirmed their acceptance, and I took the opportunity to offer our thanks to the Returning Officers and to Didrik de Schaetzen, who had co-ordinated the election on behalf of the ALDE Party secretariat, for their efforts, before we returned to our candidates.

Then, the announcement, with the results simultaneously screened for the Congress to see. Ros had won fairly handily, getting 73% of the valid votes cast, and coming third overall. Elected with her were Marcus Löning from the FDP, Germany, Ilhan Kyuchuyk from the MRF, Bulgaria, (probably the first Muslim Bureau member ever), Timmy Dooley from Fianna Fáil, Ireland, Marta Pascal from Convergencia, Catalonia, and Fredrick Federley, from Centerpartiet, Sweden.

The campaign was over, a victory had been gained, and a future unlocked. We took the International Office team off for a glass of champagne to mark the result, but mostly as a small thank you for the work that they had done to make it possible.

I am very proud of Ros. She ran a campaign which was true to her values, stuck to the issues and was about doing things rather than being things. I have every confidence that she will do the Liberal Democrats proud during her term of office, and that she will, eventually, leave the ALDE Party stronger than it was when she arrived. And that, when all is said and done, is what politics is all about.

As for me, it seems that I am a (Vice-)Presidential consort again, at least for two years. For Saffron Walden, read Vilnius, presumably... it could be a lot of fun...

@ALDEParty Council: I've written my Liszt, I'm checking it twice...

Alright, I lied, there was always going to be a pun...

Council has met in both halves of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in my relatively short time back in ALDE, and it will be nice to be on the banks of the Danube after so many years (alright, it isn't blue, but it is fairly deep). But there is business to attend to and, as I may be the only Liberal Democrat who campaigned for election to our Council delegation on the basis that I would... attend Council and discuss the administration of ALDE (bloody radical, eh?), the only way you'll ever know is if I preview it. So, here goes...

Meetings of Council that take part within the Congress agenda are seldom exciting by comparison, and this one is no exception. However, there are some potentially interesting items on the agenda.

The two membership applications offer ALDE a route back towards relevance in Eastern and Central Europe, as Liberalisok, the Hungarian Liberal Party, and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Party, from Romania, are both up for consideration. One of the prime reasons for us being here is to encourage the liberal forces is what has become a very nationalist, conservative country to rebuild after a very difficult period. As for the Romanians, the defection of our previous member party to the European People's Party was a blow, and any credible pan-European political party really needs a presence there.

The statutes are up for debate too. The past few years have seen a number of significant changes to the structure of ALDE, with the emergence of an individual membership programme and a more active Gender Equality Network. In the wider European political environment, the emergence of common candidates for leadership roles makes demands on the political parties too.

Whilst Congress is responsible for the statutes, Council has to deal with the mechanics of it all, and so we'll be looking at voting rights for the individual members, resolution submission rights for the Gender Equality Network, as well as electoral procedure rules. In terms of the wider European issues, the process by which a common top candidate for European elections is on the table, with the means for adoption of a common electoral manifesto also to be discussed - not something that we in the Liberal Democrats have ever really cleaved to.

Of course, we'll be looking at the finances, including the increasingly innovative ideas for fundraising emerging from the Bureau and the Secretariat, and quizzing the Bureau on their activity over the past six months.

But, in the background, the intriguing will be constant, as the two Presidential and ten Vice-Presidential candidates, including our own Ros Scott, campaign for support. Don't worry, Liberal Bureaucracy will be covering it all...

@ALDEParty Congress - actually, why don't I call upon the knowledge of hundreds?

I am a member of the International Relations Committee of my beloved Party, and represent most of you at ALDE Party Councils and Congresses (the rest of you go yourselves, and I know who you are). However, having been elected by Conference delegates, I do like to get involved in the policy debates where I can. The catch is, you can't. At least, not in the way that I can. However, you know stuff, gentle reader, and almost certainly stuff that I don't know.

And so, it dawns on me, why not tap into your knowledge when considering what we might do with (or to) the various policy resolutions up for discussion?

So, here's a list of topics up for discussion and, if you're interested, leave a comment here and I'll e-mail over the resolution to you;

1. A coherent and ambitious EU Development policy
2. Antimicrobial resistance
3. Creating a competitive EU labour market for the 21st century
4. Creating a growth-friendly regulatory environment
5. European Integration of the Western Balkans
6. For a comprehensive TTIP Agreement
7. Iraq and Syria
8. On the Situation in Ukraine
9. Policies on the development of European bio- and circular economies
10. Reclaiming Liberalism - Shaping a modern liberal approach to migration (I've already passed this one on to Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary)
11. Reclaiming Liberalism - Shaping a modern liberal policy for economic justice
12. Reinforce ETS as the single instrument for CO2 reductions
13. Removing PKK from EU’s terror list
14. Responding to the refugee crisis
15. Strengthening criminal justice and transfer of prisoners within the EU
16. Sustainable use of maritime resources
17. The Energy Union should focus on security of supply
18. Towards a Global Climate Change Treaty and Decarbonisation
19. Towards a truly global fight against tax havens – proposal for an inclusive UN body to combat global tax evasion

As always, these things are on a tight turnaround, and the deadline for submitting amendments is Friday (October 23rd).

So, we've got this technology, and why not use it?

@ALDEParty Bureau Election 2015 - time to declare our candidate, methinks...

It is occasionally easy to forget that seven years ago, Ros and I were in the midst of the incredible campaign that culminated in Ros's glorious victory in the contest for the Party Presidency. And so, it seems appropriate to come to Bournemouth to announce the start of a new campaign.

In November, the Congress of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe takes place in Budapest, and culminates in the election of a new President and five, possibly six, Vice Presidents. And, with Graham Watson standing down from the Presidency, the Party have decided to nominate a candidate for a Vice Presidential position.

It is with some pleasure that I can reveal that, subject to the endorsement of Tim Farron (and I'm not expecting him to let me down here...), the Party will be proposing Ros to be our candidate. I've already dug out an 'I'm 4 Ros' badge, and changed my avatar - you may have noticed that and wondered why - and we'll be producing badges and campaign material over the coming weeks in anticipation.

So, if you saw us in the Marriott Highcliff and wondered where we've been, now you know. And, if you kept your badge from seven years ago, and are planning to be in Budapest, you might want to have a rummage when you get home...

A European Union first, with @BaronessRos at its heart...

One of the curiosities of the way the European Union works is the right of the national parliaments to stop, or slow, a proposal of the Commission if it is thought to violate the principle of subsidiarity. If one third of them raise an objection, a so-called 'yellow card', the commission is obliged to review the proposal. If more than half of them object, a so-called 'orange card', the Council or the Parliament can immediately vote the proposal down.

There has been talk of a red card, something that William Hague raised as Foreign Secretary, whereby a majority of national parliaments could veto a proposal, killing it stone dead, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for that beyond the Conservative Party. However, the next innovation has come from, perhaps, an unlikely quarter, the House of Lords European Union Select Committee.

The concept of a 'green card', whereby a group of national Parliaments propose that the European Commission take action on a specified issue, emerged from the report, "The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union", and, since then, there has been some discreet lobbying done by members of the Select Committee, chaired by Lord Boswell of Aynho, of other European Union scrutiny committees across Europe.

This culminated in a debate at the COSAC (Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union) plenary meeting in Riga at the beginning of last month, where a majority of speakers supported the idea of enhancing the political dialogue by introducing a "green card" and several agreed to launch a pilot project.

The pilot project is to be based on the House of Lords report on food waste, produced by Sub-Committee D of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee, chaired by none other than Ros, and a letter has been sent to the chairs of European Affairs Committees in the other national Parliaments in advance of the next COSAC meeting In Luxembourg this week, seeking their support or amendments.

If all goes well, a letter will then be sent to Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, urging the Commission to take into account a series of recommendations when drawing up the proposed circular economy package to replace the one withdrawn in February.

It will be interesting to see what happens, as the notion of national parliaments working in harmony with the European Commission is a fairly radical one which might lead to a rather better Europe...

Tax evasion and avoidance - is this another sign that Europe is taking it seriously?

I receive a daily e-mail from the European Parliament, of my own free will, it might surprise readers to know. Generally, they're all a bit... well, dull and far too vast to read. However, occasionally, there is something that catches my eye...

The European Parliament as a whole voted on Thursday to set up a special parliamentary committee to look into EU member states' "tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect" and make recommendations for the future. The committee will have 45 members and is established for an initial period of six months.

Result of the vote: 612 in favour, 19 against and 23 abstentions. The composition of the committee was approved by a show of hands.

Mandate

The committee will look into tax ruling practices as far back as 1 January 1991, but will also review the way the European Commission treats state aid in member states and the extent to which they are transparent about their tax rulings. It will also seek to ascertain the negative impact of aggressive tax planning on public finances and will come up with recommendations for the future.

The list of committee members includes Anneliese Dodds (S&D, UK), Kay Swinburne (ECR, UK) and Patrick O'Flynn (EFDD, UK)

Background

The committee is being set up in the wake of a series of investigations launched by the European Commission into tax rulings for multinational companies in Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee plans to draw up an "inquiry" report (non-legislative, own initiative), on tax rulings will now lapse, because its remit would have overlapped that the special committee.

So, one Conservative, one Labour and one UKIP, and it will be interesting to see whether or not they intend to focus on solutions or soundbites. I particularly look forward to Patrick O'Flynn's thoughts on tax harmonisation and sovereignty...

Hope? Yes by all means, but don't get carried away...

I read the piece by Maelo Manning the other day with some interest and found her thoughts on the question of hope intriguing. She is, of course, right - when times are hard, as they still are, giving voters a prospect of better times ahead is a means of convincing people that short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. There is, however (and you just knew that I was going to say that, didn't you?), a catch, in that such hope has to be based in reality.

Frankly, I fear for the Greek people. The decision of the incoming Syriza-led administration to unpick significant chunks of the agreed package of reform will frighten the markets - the Athens stock market is already in severe crisis. And, whilst the attractive option is to tell the markets to go screw themselves (that's a technical term, you understand), the fact that government spending is already dependent on the funds supplied in exchange for those reforms will inevitably lead to a gap between income and expenditure. You can, naturally, fill that gap by increasing income through taxation (slow and by no means guaranteed) or, more likely, through borrowing. So, let me ask you this, would you lend money to Greece right now? Could you be confident that Tsipras and his colleagues wouldn't renege on the debt? I wouldn't be.

You might say, "Ah, but Europe couldn't allow such a thing to happen, a deal would be cut, surely?". And yes, it is possible, but given the sacrifices that the likes of Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia have made to reform their economies, why should they give the Greeks an easy ride? And what message does it send to others if the Greeks do get to keep their bloated public sector and relatively generous welfare provision, neither of which they can afford?

But the message is equally true here. I won't bother with the Greens, as their economic policy is verging on laughable, but Labour's talk of cutting the deficit whilst apparently not making any cuts that will upset people is equally absurd. Saving the NHS by giving it more money is merely a short-term fix unless we are going to use that window to reform it in a sustainable way (Liberal Democrats please note...), and ring-fencing key budgets only means even greater pain for the remainder of the public sector if an aim to eliminate the deficit by 2020 is to be credible.

No, there will be more pain, more "blood, sweat and tears" to be endured over the next five years. The possible reward is an economy that can be sustained, a welfare system that protects the vulnerable and a public sector that delivers what we need, rather than what we desire.

Is Douglas Alexander made of the right stuff when it comes to Europe?

Despite the fact that I am usually eighty miles from London, I do read the Evening Standard fairly regularly - the 18.25 service from Ipswich to Stowmarket (the 17.02 ex-Liverpool Street) is usually littered with them.

Yesterday, my eye was drawn to a piece by Douglas Alexander, calling for the City of London to take a lead in fighting for our future within the European Union. And whilst he doesn't say an awful lot about what the Labour Party will do in any future referendum campaign - presumably, if they win on 7 May, there won't be one - he is at least headed in a direction that pro-European liberals might approve.

His key paragraph is;

From day one in office, a newly elected Labour government would set about enhancing the UK’s influence in Europe and reset relations with other EU leaders after five years of Mr Cameron’s failed approach.

Alright, it is merely a less childish version of, "Yah boo, you smell and you've got no friends!", but it is better than the Conservative approach of saying, "You really need us, don't you? What's it worth?".

Naturally, one might be suspicious of Labour's commitment towards working with, and engaging fully in, the European Union, based on their performance in Government between 1997 and 2010. We'll see, I guess...

Open Europe's guide to the big events of 2015

In my capacity as a member of the International Relations Committee of the Liberal Democrats, I am trying to keep abreast of events in both Europe and elsewhere. Open Europe are, to my mind, an interesting source of news and views, and the piece by their Director, Mats Persson, on likely key events this year, is well worth a read.

Personally, I'd add the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the possible impact if more facts emerge linking Jean-Claude Juncker to possible sweetheart tax deals that took place whilst he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg. Given that his party is in opposition there now, it may be that there is little desire to protect him.

Latvia welcomes careful Europeans...

Next month, Latvia assumes the Presidency of the European Council and, to introduce itself to the world, this really rather charming video has been released. So, if you don't know very much about Latvia, here, in less than three minutes, is a Latvian view of themselves...

Good news from Moldova. Probably...

Moldova - EU neighbour, but friend?

Yesterday's election in Moldova looks like returning another pro-European coalition to power - good news for those who support building a bigger, more inclusive Europe, bad for Russia, not great for UKIP supporters and possibly a headache for the European Union.

The elections saw allegations of Russian interference - the new Patria party was disqualified three days before polling day amidst accusations, probably well-founded, that the party was funded by Russia. The fact that its leader promptly fled to Moscow might imply guilt, although the OSCE rather wisely raised its concerns that the timing of the disqualification might have been, how might one put it, convenient.

The impact of the disqualification appears to have been that Patria supporters reverted to the pro-Russia Socialist Party, who want Moldova to reject its recently signed Association Agreement with the European Union in favour of a Eurasian Union with Russia and others. With what appears to be the largest share of the vote (21.1%), they will doubtless be seen as the big winners. The two members of the ruling pro-Europe coalition, the Liberal Democrats - somewhat confusingly associated with the European People's Party - and the Democratic Party, came second (19.6%) and fourth (15.8%) respectively, whilst the Communists came third with 17.9%.

Of rather more interest to liberals is the performance of the Liberal Party, who are observer members of ALDE, and who resigned from the ruling coalition last year. Their vote is slightly down on 2010 (9.5% compared to 10%), but as seats in Parliament are proportionately allocated to all parties who reach the required minimum share of the vote (6% but with some interesting provision for electoral pacts), they may well end up with an extra seat in the 101-seat Parliament.

Their support, presumed but not guaranteed, for the Liberal Democrats and the Democratic Party, would ensure that the pro-EU forces would have a working majority.

The result is probably bad for Russia, as their widely presumed interference in Moldovan politics may well have backfired, and Moldova is likely to move on its bid for EU membership as early as 2017.

UKIP supporters will probably not be too keen on the fact that Moldovans now have visa-free access to the European Union. Luckily, there are only 3.5 million people in Moldova...

But the headache for the European Union is that it brings into sharp focus the 'frozen conflict' of Transdniestria, which is currently something of a rogue state, having declared itself independent of Moldova and which has applied for annexation by Russia. With 1,000 Russian soldiers in its territory who show no signs of leaving, and rather a lot of weaponry still lying about the place, Federica Mogherini and her team will almost certainly have to add it to the list of issues to be raised when dealing with Vladimir Putin and his charming cohorts.

But, regardless of what the future may bring, congratulations to Mihai Ghimpu and his colleagues, and we look forward to congratulating them on their success if they are able to join ALDE Council delegates in Oslo in May.

@ALDEParty Congress resolutions 2014 - Combatting tax havens

The second resolution is jointly sponsored by Svenska Folkpartiet (Swedish People's Party, Finland) and Folkpartiet Liberalerna (Sweden). I comment below...

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party convening in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-22 November 2014:

Notes that 

• the issue of tax evasion and tax havens needs more attention, as evading taxes hinders development globally;
• the flow of money to tax havens includes but is not limited to multinational corporation's tax-planning schemes, corruption and money laundering;
• the issue is both local and global and many different actors need to be part of the solution;
• multinational corporations have significant economic power. Of the 100 largest economic actors globally, 40 are corporations according to the Transnational Institute, and therefore they are key to solving this issue;
• international cooperation is needed, and all parties should be present at the table when matters of this nature are being discussed. Today many discussions under the OECD umbrella are being held only with rich countries present;
• tax havens and taxation is a key factor in maintaining poverty globally as countries in the global south transfer 800 billion euros to tax havens and rich countries according to a report by Financial Integrity (December 2012), while the same countries annually receive approximately 96 billion euros in foreign aid. In order to help these countries move away from dependency of foreign aid, the challenge of massive tax evasion has to be addressed;
• according to estimates the EU loses approximately 1,000 billion euros annually due to tax evasion;

Believes that 

• due to the complex nature of tax evasion there is no simple answer to combatting the issue;
• it is difficult to follow the finances of multinational corporations as they do not have to report the nature of the financial transactions between different countries they operate in;

Calls on

• the European Union to harmonise corporate tax rates by introducing minimum levels;
• the development of clear rules and regulations for national reporting of multinational corporations profits and taxes, and transparent information on owners and beneficiaries for national administrative bodies;
• the European Union to actively support the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in their work in the global fight against tax evasion and tax havens, while working to making sure that the developing world is included in these discussions and decisions.

My gut feeling is that the resolution has its heart in the right place, right up to the point where they call for a minimum level of corporate tax across Europe. I see where they are coming from, but interference in a sovereign nation's right to set its tax levels is probably unacceptable and prevents a national government from potentially offering incentives to encourage certain desired behaviours. I'll be opposing this in the working group if given the chance.

Sweden: and if you thought being the junior partner in a coalition was bad here...

I may have noted, if only on my Twitter feed, that Ros and I had recently found ourselves in Stockholm as a General Election campaign for the Riksdag was underway. The ruling four-party centre-right coalition consisting of the Moderates, the Liberal People's Party (Folkpartiet), the Centre Party (Centerpartiet) and the Christian Democrats were up against a centre-left coalition consisting of the Social Democrats, the Greens, the Feminist Alternative and the Left Party, with the ultra-nationalist and generally beyond the pale Swedish Democrats as an increasingly prominent repository for protest votes.

The election finally took place on 14 September and produced an astonishingly inconclusive result;

• Social Democrats - 113 seats (+1)
• Moderates - 84 seats (-23)
• Swedish Democrats - 49 seats (+29)
• Greens - 25 seats (no change)
• Centre Party - 22 seats (-1)
• Left Party - 21 seats (+2)
• Liberal People's Party - 19 seats (-5)
• Christian Democrats - 16 seats (-3)

The outgoing Coalition were left with 141 seats, the opposition from the left 159 seats, and with 175 needed to gain a majority and the Swedish Democrats ruled out by everyone else, it was time to negotiate.

The Social Democrats reached out to the Centre Party and the Liberal People's Party without success, and concluded that the Left Party was simply unviable as a partner in government. And so, on Friday, Social Democrat leader, Stefan Lofven, announced the formation of an administration consisting of just his party and the Greens, holding just 138 seats, with 211 opposition representatives.

The Greens have never been in government before, the Social Democrats have never been in coalition and, in order to win votes, they will need to win over other parties. Anything that attracts the Left will probably repel the two liberal parties, and vice versa.

Life is going to be very interesting in the coming months, I suspect...