EU Smackdown: Clegg vs. Farage

Clegg vs Farage. Farage vs Clegg. Two marginal political leaders slugging it out in a debate over EU policy, one of the public's most marginal issues. The biggest political fight of 2014 so far will be televised by the BBC on 2nd April, and has naturally attracted a fair bit of attention. But who will come out on top - Nigel or Nick?

At first glance it seems a foregone conclusion. Farage and UKIP have been setting the political agenda on Europe for the last two years, scooping up second place in Westminster by-elections and effectively bouncing David Cameron into holding an EU referendum (which I thought then was a stupid move, and still do). UKIP have displaced the Lib Dems as the protest party of choice, consistently polling around 15-20% to the yellows' 10%. Add to this Farage's ability to connect to the common man by drawing on talk of the 'out-of-touch Westminster elites' and it looks like victory is within spitting distance for Nigel.

Yet for all that, my bet would be that Clegg pulls off a surprise triumph on the night. In a head-to-head TV debate on the EU, Farage's biggest strengths could well turn out to be his greatest weaknesses. The meteoric rise of UKIP as a political force has been accompanied by a disproportionately large share of media coverage. While they have succeeded in getting a referendum on EU membership, the noise in that debate has been almost entirely emanating from the 'Out' camp and UKIP. The 'In' case has barely let out a squeak. What's even more interesting is that despite the one-sided nature of press coverage, the polls have showed a remarkably narrow gap between those in favour of Brexit and those against. Clegg could therefore be well placed to pick up support from a hitherto ignored group.

And bizarrely, perhaps Nick's greatest advantage is Farage's 'man of the people' persona. Nigel Farage is a fantastic performer when giving a speech to a room full of people, banging his fist on the table and damning the EU with one hand, pint glass in the other. But as we have seen, his emotions can sometimes get the better of him - remember his fury when he got trapped in a pub in Edinburgh, or his overreaction to Anna Soubry's suggestion that he had a finger up his bottom.

That's why I think the smart money's on Nick to be declared the winner. All he has to do is make a credible case for EU membership and manage to subtly provoke Nigel into a rage, while remaining polite and reasonable. And if Clegg doesn't win, he can always say sorry.

Long Live the AKP

Both the news and Facebook newsfeeds have been full of commentary on the Turkish protests this week. But for those who live under a rock, events have run something like this:

After riot police tear-gassed a small group of people in Istanbul protesting against Gezi Park being bulldozed for redevelopment as a shopping mall, thousands of people marched into nearby Taksim Square in anger at the brutality. The demonstrations spread to other cities within a few days, and now unions are calling a two-day general strike. For his part, the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, insists that he will not compromise the original plans to redevelop the park nor listen substantially to the protesters. The political angle to the protests is explicit, with calls for the PM and the government to resign, reflecting the polarised nature of Turkish society. Although the Gezi park issue galvanised traditionalists and conservatives, the public anger has emanated mainly from the 30-40% of Turkey that has long loathed Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP): the left, secularists, Kemalist-nationalists and the youth of the major cities. They have many grievances (see this article, for example), many of which are perfectly valid.

Yet what the Facebook warriors have missed in their righteous fury is this: the problem is not Erdogan's government but the shambles that is the parliamentary opposition.

That is not to say that the government is right in destroying an historic park without proper consultation, or condoning police brutality. But would any of this have happened had the AKP not been the only serious party in Turkey for the last decade? If there had been a pragmatic opposition party, or coalition of parties, that offered a positive alternative vision for Turkey? Arguably not. If there had been such an opposition, Erodogan and the AKP would have been held to account far more effectively. The people protesting on the street, trying to remove a democratically elected government via mass sit-ins and striking, would have had an outlet to channel their dissatisfaction. Crackdowns on Erdogan's enemies would not have been anywhere near as authoritarian or total. Indeed, the AKP has been a victim of its own success. Had they not had the power to systematically destroy their enemies (in the army, the media, the courts) there would not be an undercurrent of anger that threatened to boot them out of office. Instead, the main opposition parties - the centre-left CHP and the nationalist MHP - have been weak, reactionary and totally ineffectual. They tried to shut down the AKP via the courts, opposed reaching out to the Kurdish population and rejected the policies that have trebled Turkey's GDP/capita. Small wonder that protesters actively dissociate from them.

So kicking out the government would do absolutely nothing to help Turkey, contra to the beliefs of indignant citizens, although it would probably succeed in sparking capital flight. The problems are real but protesters are focusing on the wrong target. A proper parliamentary opposition is the only way that any of their concerns will ever get addressed, because if Erdogan et al. don't face a challenge at the ballot box they have no incentive to listen. Until such an opposition emerges, long live the AKP.

The Fallacy of an EU Membership Referendum

It seems not a week goes past without some media coverage of some goon somewhere demanding that Britain hold a referendum on EU membership. "In or Out", they cry, "the people deserve, no, demand, a say!". Of course, this has been going on for years, probably since the last referendum in 1975. But  the level of attention paid and the prominence of advocates is unprecedented. That David Cameron is now considering a referendum, when he carefully avoided one for the Lisbon Treaty, is proof of how ingrained the stance has become in the Conservative Party. The question I pose to those who support a referendum is: what the hell is wrong with you?

Daniel Hannan provides the classic argument for an 'In-Out' choice in this article. Similarly, I attended a talk by Iain Martin of the Telegraph on the need for 're-negotiation in good faith' followed by a referendum if that failed. For people like Hannan and Martin, a referendum would lead to withdrawal due to the electorate's hatred of all things EU, and allow Britain to return to its rightful status as a trading nation able to pursue the emerging markets of the Commonwealth and the BRICS. Additionally, the UK would have access to the European market despite being outside the EU because 'they need us more than we need them' when it comes to trade with the Eurozone. A referendum and subsequent withdrawal is therefore a no-brainer.

Only these people advocating withdrawal are living in a world of fantasy, as Radek Sikorski argues. Firstly, there would be no chance of free-riding on the Single Market. Britain would be in the same camp as Norway, paying for access with no say in its running. The cost of access could even be raised as a result of Britain clearly turning its back on its neighbours, especially if we followed Mr Martin's approach of pissing everyone off before leaving (and no doubt an especially appealing option to France, with its traditional love of all things protectionist). Secondly, the arguments for emerging market access are based on a romantic view of Britain's imperial past. The fact is that the contemporary UK needs EU membership to have any say at all in global affairs, with some arguing that we can hope to influence no more than 10 countries even then. Thirdly, given that the previous two points would certainly take centre stage in an 'In-Out' referendum, there is a much diminished chance that the public would vote for withdrawal.

This would leave us with an 'In' vote and all that entails. Once a country has voted that it wants to be a full member of the EU, it has to be a proper member and accept collective decisions. The scope for British opt-outs would be drastically reduced, and the pressure to go along with the Franco-German position of the day overwhelming. "No more obstruction allowed, you've voted in favour of EU decision-making don't forget", etc.

So no matter which way Britain would vote, we would be in a worse situation strategically. Tory MPs
and media pundits who press for a referendum are not pragmatists but fantasists. The traditional British approach to Europe has been remarkably successful until now, with our ability to opt out of key policy areas while benefiting from the global economic and political clout that comes with EU membership. If the EU were to clearly jeopardise British interests, via financial regulation say, then of course we'll be out like a shot. But until such a clear cost-benefit analysis says leave, jockeying for a referendum on membership is pure stupidity.

No Excuses

I know that the overwhelming majority of people who saw scenes of violence on the news recently were appalled, disgusted and furious - and rightly so. But I'm sure we've all also noticed a small but steady number of people treating violent yobs almost as victims and arguing against their criminality, ostensibly to provide some sort of 'balance' to public discussion. These arguments have mainly consisted either of blaming the government for not helping the long-term unemployed or blaming the law-abiding public for despising lawless mobs because they don't understand their troubles. The first point is misguided, the second plain wrong, but both infuriate me because proponents seek to 'pass the buck' for criminal actions onto politicians, the public and the police by attempting to remove responsibility from those committing violent crime. To me and anyone else who has a sense of pride in their country and society, this is utterly unacceptable.

Firstly, arguments for some government culpability have a grain of truth, as the fact that around 25% of all arrests were for people living in the same postcode as the shops they looted testifies. Clearly a large minority feel little association or a sense of belonging to their community, and part of that blame does lie with successive governments failing to tackle long-term unemployment and welfare problems. But it is not reason enough to blame the current government, which has only been in power for one year. Argue all you like about planned welfare reforms (which can surely only improve a dire situation), but don't be so stupid to pin long-term problems on a young ministry.

The second argument, that the public can't possibly make a value judgement on someone smashing a corner shop or burning a house down because they don't understand his life, makes me rage. It's not only symptomatic of a culture of moral relativism where nobody can comment on anything unless it's about themselves, but is based on a false assumption that all rioters were of a poor 'underclass' or let down by society. Some of the first to be tried in court were teaching assistants, graduates, IT workers - these people are not victims of economic troubles or societal disregard. Furthermore, I don't accept that the poor have a right to destroy property and livelihoods just because they are poor. There is no easy cause to point to when looking to explain the riots, but that does not mean we should automatically afford victim status to criminals just to make sense of it all. The amount of money in someone's bank account does not make them deserving of sympathy or otherwise; when looking at situations like this we must consider actions and intentions, and in this particular case they were clear to see. But I cannot stress this point enough:

We should never judge people based on their income, but on their behaviour - and those who behave like thugs deserve to be judged and derided by society accordingly.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337 - Petition to revoke benefits for those convicted of criminal acts during the London riots

Modern Architecture

My attention was captured by an excellent column in today's Times by Roger Scruton on modern architecture, which I would've reposted from the website but for Rupert Murdoch's pay-wall. Luckily it's pretty much summed up in the video below, continuing in the first three minutes of 'Part Three'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZDiKJIroU#t=7m14s

P.S.

Whilst I'm normally all for reasoned debate about most issues and can usually understand why other people hold their views, modern architecture is one of the exceptions. If you like 'daring', 'edgy' and 'futuristic' architecture then you're an idiot who serves only to destroy civilisation by encouraging architectural pygmies.

Of Politicans, Careerists, and Statesmen

After many months of absence, and many happenings on which I hold an opinion and failed to write (e.g. tuition fees, Wikileaks), I came across this long-running issue, or rather these two inter-connected issues. Since the introduction of salaries for MPs in 1911, there has been the question of whether politics should be treated as any other professional employment, or whether it is wrong to treat the highest level of public service as a career. Loosely connected to this is the idea of statesmanship - the idea of those holding public office conducting themselves with a sense of mission and responsibility. Many argue that we should root out careerist politicians so as to promote a statesman-like approach to governance. But can we separate the three - careerists, politicians, statesmen - or do they necessarily appear together in a political system such as ours?

Many people assume that any student reading politics and international relations, like myself, necessarily wants to become an MP, and are sometimes surprised when told otherwise. Yet despite this assumption, many see 'professional politicians' as a Bad Thing, as one of many factors that make politics uninteresting, and politicians unrepresentative or detached from 'real' people. But is there not something strange about this attitude? As one of my close friends challenges, why should we treat someone who wants to spend their life working in politics (such as himself) as any different to one who wished to work in finance? The argument is, of course, that democratic politics is not the same as finance or any other career. It is argued that denouncing the professionalism of politicians is justified because it is good for the country and its citizens if those in charge have some experience of how their decisions will affect others. Yet arguably people working high up in non-governmental positions, especially finance, have an equally narrow experience of the wider world. In addition, they tend to be more self-serving, so encouraging a stint in non-political employment for potential politicians does not equal better or more experienced rulers.

But where do we draw the line between professional politician and careerist? It is surely harmful for the country to be ruled by a group of politicians who are concerned chiefly with self-advancement. Holding the reins of public office or working in government service, in whatever department, is a huge responsibility. It is not the same as any other profession, as no other profession can have such an impact on the everyday lives of all citizens, nor indeed receive so much unpopularity for trying to achieve compromise. In other professions, careerism is problematic as individuals focus on their promotion rather than the collective or long-term good. In democratic politics, however, the problem can be seen to be deeper than promotion, as the ultimate aim is to win elections. Clearly elections are necessary, but they have the tendency to promote careerism within the field of politics, as each reform a government may see as necessary comes under scrutiny as to how it would play out at elections.

All this would suggest we need to promote the ideal of 'statesmanship'. Harry Truman referred to a statesman as "a politician who has been dead for 15 years", but that need not be the case. Perhaps a better distinction is that, as Mikhail Gorbachev said, "a statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him re-elected". In a political system such as ours, with its previously mentioned emphasis on elections, true statesmen tend to be few and far between. The picture at the top of this article is of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India (he served from 1898-1905), someone who was recognised at the time of his Viceroyalty as acting in the interests of the people of India and also of the Empire. But Curzon is at the same time a prime example of how our system discourages statesman-like behaviour. After his return from India he was cast out into the wilderness, and although he entered the Cabinet in 1915 and served as a successful Foreign Secretary from 1919-24, he was never able to attain the premiership. Personal faults aside, he was simply out-manoeuvred by politicians such as Stanley Baldwin and David Lloyd George, and attacked by careerists such as Kitchener. Statesmen, it would seem, find it hard to climb the greasy pole of politics.

So in recognition of all this, should we give up on the seemingly unattainable ideal of the statesman in favour of Machiavelli's Prince? Not wholly - what is needed is a more realistic view. The world of politics is not cleanly divided into separate categories - one need only look at Winston Churchill for proof. He entered politics as a way to further his career, before being recognised as a consummate politician after his defection to the Liberal Party and then back to the Conservatives. His war record speaks for itself, and he was awarded a knighthood and a state funeral in recognition of his service as a statesman. There are a few who attain statesmanship early in their career, but on the whole it appears to be a badge associated with longevity and experience. Therefore we should recognise that we need professional politicians in order to breed statesmen - that in contrast to the popular view, working in politics for one's entire life is beneficial for the people and the country, even if it is a thankless task.

The Eastern Question

In the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, the 'Eastern Question' was a hot topic among Western powers. Now, over the last 18 months or so, Turkey has again been garnering a lot of international attention, beginning with Prime Minister Erdogan (pictured, with David Cameron) walking out of the Davos forum last year in protest at Israel's Gaza operations, through to voting against sanctions on Iran in a recent UN Security Council meeting. Actions such as these, together with increasingly close ties with Russia and China, have led to the perception that Turkey is 'looking eastwards' after decades (or indeed centuries) of Westernisation. For many this appears to be a cause for concern, a symbol of the decline of Western economies and a country turning away from those that were previously its allies (most obviously Israel). There also appears to be a perception prevalent in the media that Turkey's government is turning the country away from liberal values and instead paving the way to Islamisation (One of the more extreme articles can be seen at
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6171324/weep-for-britain-1940-this-is-not.thtml).

However, those somewhat acquainted with Turkish current affairs can draw different conclusions, which point to a far more optimistic picture.

The charge of an illiberal and Islamist government agenda is somewhat ludicrous. The so-called 'evidence' for backing up such doom-mongering appears chiefly to be that the current government is made up of moderate Muslims, and that there was an attempt a couple of years ago to allow headscarves to be worn in public institutions which resulted in a backlash. When properly looked at rather than screamed hysterically, however, these points seem to support the idea of the progression of liberal democracy in Turkey, not the reverse. Take a look at the government. The ruling AK Party was elected in 2003 on a mandate to improve the economy and begin EU accession talks. It has delivered on both these fronts, opening EU talks in 2005 and bringing in a string of economic reforms. As a result, Turkey has seen a phenomenal turnaround in its economy, with FDI increasing exponentially, hyperinflation tamed in a couple of years and GDP per capita increasing nearly tenfold over 10 years. Yet the government has not only tackled economic problems, but has been the first since the inception of the Republic to seriously tackle democratic issues. Amongst other changes, it has set a date for a referendum on a raft of proposed changes to the country's constitution, drawn up after a 1980 coup by the army (which, it transpires, engineered the anarchy which provided the pretext for a takeover). All this by the same government that is apparently made up of 'Islamic extremists'. A supposed example of the 'covert Islamism' charge levelled at the AK government was the attempt to remove restrictions on wearing headscarves in public workplaces such as universities, which led to an uproar amongst 'secularists' who perceived it as an assault on the Republic's values. In fact, the ban was only introduced in 1997 after pressure from the country's army, and its removal represents a step towards the tolerant attitudes Turkey's detractors say it lacks. The AK Party has to be given credit for turning a developing country into a G20 member and working to enhance Turkish democracy.

Very well, say some: Turkey has improved massively at home, but what about its foreign policy? It has courted Iran whilst aggravating Israel, they say; surely that's proof of a negative 'eastwards' shift in outlook? Again, one must look at this objectively. Turkey voted against further sanctions on Iran because it believed they would serve no good purpose. Sanctions cannot stop the possession of nuclear weapons by a regime bent on acquiring them; if anything, they will serve as an incentive to increase efforts to get hold of them. Far better to try and integrate Iran into the international community, especially as the country shares a border with Turkey. The anti-Israel sentiment displayed recently can be attributed to several factors. The first is the shooting of 9 Turkish citizens on board an aid ship bound for Gaza; the second is the perceived obstruction of the Israeli government in achieving an Israel-Palestine settlement, which agitates Turkey's neighbours such as Syria; and the third is a feeling of responsibility towards those in Gaza, partly for historical reasons. Most importantly, neither the current friendliness towards Iran nor the antipathy towards Israel is likely to become a permanent state of affairs, as it would not be in Turkey's interest to make it so.

So what are Turkey's interests? Given the country's economic resurgence, there is a clear incentive to become a strong regional player to boost trade with neighbours in both the Near East and Eastern Europe - dubbed by some in the Turkish media as 'neo-Ottomanism'. Yet it is also in the EU's interest to have a strong Turkey in these regions, to act as mediator between the West and the East, and to defuse tensions wherever possible. Already Turkey acts as mediator between Iran and America, and Israel and Palestine. Recently, Turkish money and diplomacy has been flowing into the Balkans, an area controlled by the Ottomans for 400 years which saw damaging fighting after their retreat in the late-19th and early-20th century. Indeed, some of the worst and most lasting conflicts of the 20th century can be traced to the lack of a strong Turkey to deal with problems - the Balkans and the Israeli-Palestinian struggles the most prominent. After many frustrated years spent pursuing EU membership, it is not surprising (and not a bad thing) that Turkey has begun concentrating on shoring up its regional base and restoring historical ties with former occupied countries. It is an approach that benefits all sides, and one that Britain, with its Commonwealth links and shared history and democracy with former 'Dominions', could learn from.

Looked at objectively, therefore, it's no exaggeration to say that Turkey has not been in such a good position for 400 years. Back in the days of the Ottoman Empire, campaigns were begun with the planting of a standard of horsetails in the battlefield. Today, the Empire has become a Republic and the battlefield has been replaced with the trading region. For the first time since the Ottoman days, however, the horsetails are in the East; Turkey is once more ascendant; and as such the West should be focussing on greeting it as a rising power and an ally, not lecturing.