Out of the darkness, into the light...

It has been a rather more cheering day here in the pearl of the Baltics, Tallinn. The buzz of political debate has given me a sense of urgency, so I've been getting on with the sort of tasks that fall upon me to perform.

And yes, I've spoken to my Regional Candidates Chair and the Chair of the Brussels and Europe Local Party, exchanged e-mails with the Chair of Federal International Relations Committee, the ALDE Party Council delegation - we're due to be in Ljubljana the weekend before polling day, and I'm expecting some withdrawals, not unreasonably.

I've also offered some support where it might be useful over the next seven weeks, so we'll see how that goes.

Meanwhile, I'm in the Baltics, on holiday, and it's a perfect place from which to contemplate the notion of being European. From Estonia, the concept of being part of Europe is so much more obvious than it appears at home. For a country with a population of just 1.3 million people, on the edge of the Union and facing the Russian bear at close range, the notion of pooling some sovereignty in exchange for a range of benefits is more than simply transactional. Freedom was hard fought for in these parts, and you don't just blithely give it away.

But you are willing to consider the benefits of a larger roof, and better protection against the elements, the opportunities that come from being part of a vast market when you have confidence in your ability to compete and thrive, the freedoms that come from travelling to your neighbours and friends, of education and trade.

It seems that our Government on one hand believes that we can strike out as a global trading nation, yet lacks the confidence to believe that it can build a better Europe from within. And as for those who not only want to leave the Union but are desperate for it to fail, one can only condemn them for their pettiness and spite. Fine, leave if you want to, but don't interfere with something that those who remain want to succeed.

The history of the Baltics has often been of the tragic kind, with the urge for freedom suppressed by more powerful neighbours time and again. For more than a quarter of a century now, they have been making their presence felt on the world stage, and perhaps we should listen to their voices and find ways of benefiting from their experiences before we close the door on our way out of the European Union.

And now, the end is near, and as we face the final curtain...

The votes took place, the Lords conceded... And then the murders began...

But seriously (and apologies to readers, but I felt that I ought to test a theory that's doing the rounds), we have reached the point of no return. Well, actually, we haven't, but that's another story. Let's just assume that we have for the time being. What happens next?

Of course, Theresa May formally notifies the invocation of Article 50 and negotiations for our departure commence. The EU Council meets to consider its negotiating stance, bringing together the divergent views of twenty-seven nations, all with their own red lines or issues of principle, whilst the European Parliament considers what it will or will not compromise on.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom negotiating position is a mystery. This is either because they're keeping their cards very close to their chest or, more likely, because they aren't able to agree on what it is. After all, is the priority sovereignty, or immigration, or what?

For the likes of Daniel Hannan and Tim Montgomerie, it's all about sovereignty, the freedom to determine our own destiny in a global economy. People like Daniel and Tim are keen for us to make new trading arrangements and escape the sclerotic bureaucracy that is the European Union. They've been pretty clear that an accommodation with the European Union in terms of trade would be preferable, the so-called Norway model. The problem is that they appear to be in a minority on the Brexit side.

For Nigel Farage and his mates, it's about English Nationalism. Frankly, he knows that the Scots and Northern Irish don't give a hoot for his narrow-minded view of the world. And given that the major urban centres weren't keen on Brexit, and that UKIP do relatively badly in areas with a high ethnic minority population, his anti-metropolitan elite schtick appeals to people who gain little tangible benefit from the global economy. Some of them are wrong about that, but in any event, just because you don't gain anything doesn't mean that you've lost something. But they're convinced that everything will be better if we raise the drawbridge and send the foreigners home. There are lots of people out there who think like that, a lot of them in areas that traditionally vote Conservative. For them, sovereignty is immersed in the immigration issue.

So, how does Theresa cater for both sets of demands? A series of lobby groups - farmers, financial sector, health care, hospitality - are all seeking special arrangements to allow migrants for their businesses, probably in excess of her stated target of 100,000, whilst a bunch of people with votes want her to send them all home.

There is talk of deals with Australia, Canada and New Zealand which, if concluded, would probably means death to swathes of our agricultural sector given their ability to produce food more cheaply than we can - land is cheap and plentiful, and they have economies of scale that we simply can't match. A cynic would suggest that the emphasis on countries that are overwhelming white is not an accident, but nevertheless...

And it seems to be being forgotten that, whist trade deals for manufactured goods are relatively straightforward, trade in services, which makes up much more of our trade, is much more difficult to negotiate. There are influential professional lobbies that aren't keen on competition, and it's much easier to erect barriers both legal and cultural.

This is not going to be easy. And the negotiators for the other side know that. They have time on their side, and a set of core principles that must be defended if the European Union is to survive intact. And we have... confusion and a divided nation.

There is no sign of compromise on this side of the Channel - the "winners" are sour in their victory, the "losers" despairing in their sense of loss and angry that the lies told during the campaign have gone mostly unpunished. And when the choice offered is so increasingly binary, compromise is rather less likely than sullen silence.

So, Brexiteers. You wanted it and now you've got it. Come back and let me know when you've decided what "it" is...

EU Associate Membership? I can see why that might annoy the authoritarian right...

I see that the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, Andrew Bridgen, is unhappy about suggestions that British citizens might be offered the option of some form of associate membership of the European Union. Diddums.

By throwing his toys out of the pram in such an ostentatious manner, he demonstrates what I have always suspected about Conservatives, which is that when they talk about choice, it is the choice to do things that they approve of (not that much, after all, they are conservatives), and that when they talk about freedom, it is with the caveat that they are to define the limits of that freedom.

In truth, the concept of associate membership is an interesting one, albeit one that I would want to have far more information about before I committed myself. But, for those who feel that it brings advantage and opportunity, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be on the table. It is, after all, about individual liberty, freedom and choice.

Mr Bridgen also demonstrates another feature of the Brexiteer mentality, which is to look at the relationship between Britain and the European Union through the wrong end of a telescope, discounting their views in favour of his desires. It is, for him and his friends, all about us. The nasty Europeans should give us everything we want, regardless of the cost to them. It is a selfish, narrow-minded view of international relations that impoverishes us all. Well, except people like him, of course.

So, remember, when Andrew Bridgen and his ilk talk about liberty and choice, they don't mean it. What they mean is that those that have should get to keep it, and that the world should cast itself in their image. They don't care about you, unless you agree with them, and even then, it's conditional. Their commitment to freedom is that of a mayfly.

So, I say this to Mr Bridgen, if the European Union wants to make me an offer, and it's an offer that I wish to take up, I'll take it up. And if you want to take it away from me, you'll have to make me a better offer. And frankly, bacon sandwiches are likely to grow on trees before you can come up with one.

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...

Latvia - a country to be proud of

Call me quirky if you will, but I rather liked the video marking the fact that Latvia will hold the Presidency of the European Council for the first half of 2015 - Luxembourg are next - and so, having discovered the follow up, I thought that I ought to bring it to your attention...