Miliband for Brussels, Continued Recession Woes & the Motives of Medvedev

With the Lisbon Treaty now a historic reality rather than an uncertain possibility following its ratification by the Czech Republic, a specially convened EU summit next week called by Sweden will finally decide who gets the new top jobs of EU Council President and EU Foreign Minister. 

Two things do seem certain - neither of these two posts will have a Brit appointed to them. This to me is a mistake. I do understand the rants and ravings from some EU leaders that Britain doesn't deserve one of the new posts due to its fervent Euroscepticism - it is not part of the euro, nor the passport-free Schengen agreement and the impending regime change in Westminster next May will bring in a Conservative government more handicapped by anti-EUism than even John Major's stricken government was in the 1990s. David Cameron is to be applauded for not caving into the ludicrous calls for a referendum for the sake of a referendum from some of the fanatically anti-EU members of the party, such as Daniel Hannan and David Davis but his promises to repatriate certain powers from Brussels will indeed come back to haunt him - to do that would require treaty renegotiations and the other 26 nations are in absolutely no mood to do this after the long slog of getting Lisbon ratified.

Britain's prime candidate for the presidency, Tony Blair, seems to have failed in his quest, as early support from Nicholas Sarkozy has drained away and Angela Merkel remains sceptical about a Blair presidency. Heck, Blair never even confirmed publicly that he wanted the job, it has been the British Government that has pushed the bid. It seems that Sarkozy and Merkel prefer more of a "chairman" figure in the Presidency, hence the growing support for an appointment of a Benelux politician (and if it has to be one of these, I still support Jean-Claude Junker, Luxembourg's PM). For the foreign Mmnister post, David Miliband, Britain's current Foreign Secretary became the focus of gossip and rumours but he has claimed that he does not want the post and will remain loyally with the sinking ship that is the Labour Party. Thus, as a second-preference candidate, I would plump for Italy's former foreign minister and prime minister, Massimo D'Alema, who does have the charisma and negotiating skills necessary to ensure the EU becomes a leading voice in world affairs.

David Miliband is amazingly well-qualified to be the EU's foreign minister. Young, charismatic, internationally known and he has built a good relationship with the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, an essential prerequisite if the foreign minister post is to become successful. He shouldn't give up the chance of becoming part of history by stubbornly staying loyal to a party which is doomed to electoral wipeout at the next election. Yes, he may become the leader of the Labour Party post-election, but as "The Times" rightly pointed out, his chances of becoming Prime Minister are incredibly slim. And he actually enjoys and cherishes his job as Foreign Secretary - he has an immense amount of energy and devotion to the role, which could easily be transferred to the European level. Being the foreign representative of 27 nations would be a incredible challenge for him, one which I'm sure he would exceed at. For Blair, I've always been much more skeptical about him taking the Presidency, being such a divisive figure. The only real benefit he would bring to the job is his international profile and his ability to command attention at international summits. My instinct still says "no" to a Blair presidency, but like David Cameron, one has to aim to be pragmatic with such issues.

A Brit should have one of the posts and it should be David Miliband. Not only does Britain have an amazing candidate in him for the foreign minister post (regardless of the fact he supposedly doesn't want it) and he should be judged on those assets alone, rather than his nationality but having a Brit in a top Brussels position could - and this is a very hopeful "could" - begin to engage the British with Europe, if they know that one of "their own" is representing the entire EU on a world level. 

Also, a top Brit in Brussels, particularly one as well-respected as Miliband could not be ignored by a new Conservative government in London - in fact, I think there is plenty of scope and professional understanding between William Hague and Miliband to work together on a number of important foreign issues crucial to the interests of Britain and the EU as a whole. The Conservatives would find it much easier to work with Miliband in Brussels than they would Blair in Brussels.

_____________________________________________________

In an updated recession tally, Britain is now joined only by Spain as the two major world economies still contracting. Italy exited recession in the third quarter, much sooner than expected (to the Italians as well, I imagine) and Russia has recorded 13.9% growth in the same quarter. Both the eurozone economy and the EU as a whole grew and France and Germany also continued expanding for the second quarter in a row, even though both grew slower than most economists had forecast.

The claims by Gordon Brown that Britain was better placed to weather the financial storm now look completely hollow and utopian. It was plain to see even at the beginning of our fall from grace back in autumn 2008 that our indebted society, obsession with house prices, the subsequent inflated property bubble and the importance of financial services ensured that our economy was least prepared out of all major economies to recover from the credit crunch. Next week, new figures will come out relating to Britain's economic performance in the third quarter and so there is still the slight possibility that they will be revised to show fractional growth - but don't bet on it.

_____________________________________________________

This week, President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia gave his annual State of the Union address, which brought surprise to ardent Russia-watchers, such as myself. To those of us who believe that Medvedev is merely a "puppet-president", keeping the throne warm before PM Vladimir Putin takes the presidency again in 2012, the address seemed to be Medvedev's way of telling us that we're wrong. That he is the man in control and Putin is HIS subordinate.

The part of the speech that most interested me was his call for the diversification of Russia's "Soviet-era" economy, away from a dependence on commodity exports, ironically as a rise in commodity prices and stability on the world's markets have allowed Russia to record double-digit economic growth for the third quarter. He also called for the rooting out of deeply entrenched corruption in both the Russian economy and Russian politics. It has always been my argument that Russia will never achieve its aim of becoming a major world power again, regardless of how many little Caucasus countries it invades or Eastern European nations it threatens unless it drastically overhauls its economy. Russian economic success is perilously dependent on a fluctuating commodity market.

Such a drastic overhaul though of the kind that Medvedev envisages would not be easy in any sense of the word - the obstacles facing such reform are staggering; societal issues, such as poverty, pitiful education provision resulting in an unskilled workforce, high levels of crime in the major cities, alcoholism and a shameful life expectancy rate. Political issues such as entrenched corruption, the continued chaos in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and North Ossetia, the drift to authoritarianism in the political system, the growth of radical nationalism, human rights abuses and stifling of the free press - these are all factors that keep foreign investors away from Russia.

And of course, there's the biggest obstacle of them all - Medvedev's own prime minister. It was Putin who created the Russia of today, along with all of its problems during his eight year presidency. By stoking nationalism, state control and the eroding of civil liberties, he has duped the vast majority of Russians into believing that Russia is strong again and that Putin was the man who achieved this. With Medvedev now saying the opposite, it will cause this carefully painted conception to be questioned. How far Putin allows this to go - especially as he is already whetting his lips for the presidency in 2012 - is anyone's guess, but I don't think Medvedev's speech will enable him to throw off the claim of "puppet-president" anytime soon.

US Exits Recession. Thank God.

Today saw the news that once again, the US economy is growing, indicating that its recession is at an end. The whole world should breathe a collective sigh of relief, as the US economy still plays the role of the world economy's predominant driving force. 

So, on the face of this good news, let's have a recap on which of the world's major economies have now officially exited recession and which are still languishing in recession:

Out of recession (or never in recession): Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, United States.

Still in recession: Italy, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom

It is definitely a good sign for the global economy that more and more nations are reporting that their national recessions are at an end, indicating that the Great Financial Crisis as a whole is also coming to an end. 

Of the G8 nations, it was Canada that first reported growth back in July, which was surprising considering how dependent and interlinked the Canadian economy is with the economic performance of its bigger neighbour down south. But, on the plus side, Canadian banks are known to be ridiculously frugal and thus were not as seriously endangered due to risky and toxic investments as banks in other leading industrial nations were. The Bank of Canada has not had to bail-out any of Canada's national banks.

Brazil, India and China, three of the "BRIC" emerging economies have seen growth at an impressive rate, indicating that they indeed will be three of the most influential economic heavyweights of the 21st century. China's performance - unsurprisingly - is the best, with figures expected to surpass the 8% growth rate that the Chinese Government sets as a yearly minimum target. But, one is concerned about how much this is down to the enormous stimulus package Beijing began at the end of last year, which amounted to $586 billion.

France, Germany and Japan's exit from recession in the second quarter was unexpected and heartily welcomed but the status of their economic recovery remains uncertain - respectively, France and Germany reported growth of 0.3% and Japan 0.9%. Japan's economy was buoyed by a recovery in its vital export industry, which in turn was due to China's recovery. The sustainability of a Japanese recovery is in doubt though due to very low levels of domestic demand and consumption. The exit from recession is great news for the new government of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), but unless there is a sustainable recovery, I fail to see how the DPJ can fulfill its manifesto promises of increased public spending and welfare reform. Germany's new government, led by the re-elected Angela Merkel and comprising her CDU and the junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats have announced tax cuts of up to 24 billion euros in the hope of stimulating the economy by stoking domestic demand and consumption. This is a recognition that the German economy can no longer rely on being an export-led economy. In France, the return to growth is one of the only good things to report for Nicholas Sarkozy's scandal-hit government, scandals including charges of nepotism concerning Sarkozy's son and the admission of a gay minister that he paid for sex with boys in Thailand.

The United States coming out of recession is fantastic news - but like China, there are fears that this growth is merely artificial growth due to President Obama's enormous stimulus package. The stimulus is due to end shortly and the test for the US economy will be whether it can create natural growth without the need for government stimulus spending. Like many other battered economies leaving recession, the US economy's two biggest challenges are an enormous government deficit and lingering unemployment, at around 9%.

That leaves Italy, Russia, Spain and the UK as the last major economies to still be contracting. Russia was badly hurt by the drop in world commodity prices, which indicates that the Kremlin has to begin reforming Russia's corrupt, archaic economy to enable it to become more diversified and services-led or Russia's bid to become a major world power again will be in doubt. Spain has the highest unemployment rate in the entire EU (nearly 20%) and its recovery will be the most painful out of all EU nations - my personal belief is that Spain won't see growth until at least the second half of 2010. The UK disappointingly failed to exit recession in the third quarter of this year, but there are hopes that it will return to growth in either the last quarter or first quarter of 2010. Regardless of this, Labour is still expected to be heavily defeated at the next General Election. Italy is also expected to grow in 2010, but its economy is also in desperate need of deregulation and a cut in public spending, due to Italy having the highest public deficit of any industrialised nation. With Berlusconi at the helm, this is not going to happen anytime soon.

In summary, promising news for all of us, as it seems the world economy is on the move again. But there's still an awful lot of work and probably some more pain still to come.

Britain's Unsung Prime Minister - A Passionate Defence of Neville Chamberlain

In any list of great British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century, guaranteed to be holding the top spot is Sir Winston Churchill. And why not, one may ask. He was the Prime Minister that through sheer determination dragged Britain through the Second World War to victory. Of course he deserves his top spot. Also featuring in the upper echelon I would imagine would be Clement Attlee, Labour Premier who founded the NHS, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Harold Wilson and David Lloyd-George, Prime Minister during the First World War (well, from 1916 after succeeding in ousting Herbert Asquith) and Britain's representative at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. 

Festering at the bottom of the list will be figures such as James Callaghan (Labour), who was responsible for allowing the unions to hold this country to ransom in the late '70s, Anthony Eden (Conservative) who was Prime Minister during the disastrous Suez campaign in 1956, where it is traditionally seen that Britain was confirmed as no longer being a first-rate world power. And of course, Neville Chamberlain, Churchill's immediate predecessor. Why would he be there? Because his spineless appeasement policies towards Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s were a disaster that led to the outbreak of another world war in September 1939.

The demonisation of Chamberlain in post-war historiography and in popular British culture as a whole is centred on his infamous "Peace in Our Time" declaration, following his return from the Munich Conference in 1938, which gave the mainly German-populated Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler and set the precedent for the subsequent invasions of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and finally Poland, in September. In less than a year after returning home "triumphant" from Munich, Britain was again at war with Germany. So Chamberlain has been interpreted as ridiculously naive, lacking the charisma, the strength and even the willingness to stand firm against Hitler. He has been painted as being so deluded and optimistic in his ability to constrain the Fuhrer, reach an understanding with the man and maintain peace at all costs.

This in my opinion is a completely one-sided judgement of Chamberlain, that shows a complete lack of understanding of the enormous diplomatic and geopolitical pressures that were challenging Britain in the late 1930s, all factors that Chamberlain had to take into account when dealing with Hitler. At his core, Chamberlain was a dedicated pacifist - his diaries indicate just how desperate he was to ensure peace prevailed and he vividly remembered the horrors of the First World War. Although he may have appeared wildly optimistic and naive about Nazi Germany and Hitler in public, in his diaries he despairs that "all Germany can understand is force" and repeats several time at different intervals that he was sure of Germany's "untrustworthiness". But because he was committed to ensuring peace prevailed and that another war did not break out, this severely limited his options in dealing with a warmongering dictator like Hitler. Counter-revisionists would argue that a diplomat with more talent than Chamerblain possessed would have found a solution. But, one must illustrate fully just how complicated and interconnected the external factors were that acted to constrain Chamberlain's room for manoeuvre. In a list-style, these were:

1.) Public fear of another war. 2.) Britain's unprepared military position 3.) Fear for the British economy, still recovering from the Great Depression and the continued economic viability of the British Empire 4.) Isolation of the Dominions and the United States. 5.) Lack of confidence in France as a viable ally against Hitler. 6.) Lack of general interest in central Europe. 7.) Continued fear and distrust of the Soviet Union and Bolshevik Communism 8.) Absence of a viable policy alternative to appeasement under these circumstances.

Thus, the revisionist thesis - which I am an adherent of - puts emphasis on the military, economic and geopolitical constraints that limited Chamberlain's diplomatic alternatives. In my opinion, it is a mistake to try and interpret and understand the Munich Conference, the British position and its subsequent consequences by only focussing on Europe - remember, Britain was still a major world imperial power at this time and extra-European factors were at the forefront in Chamberlain's calculations. On the contrary, Germany was - and always has been - a European-based Great Power, with most of its chief interests based on the European Continent. This was of enormous advantage for Germany in the diplomatic game of the 1930s, as Hitler never had to consider the impact that events in Europe would have on precious German interests overseas, as they simply did not exist. For Chamberlain, the Empire itself became an enormous constraint in his ability to reign in Hitler in Europe. The three most important factors in Britain's extra-European considerations in the late 1930s were; 1.) Chamberlain's uncertainty about assured Commonwealth support if Britain went to war. 2.) Uncertainty of how the United States would respond to the outbreak of a European war. 3.) Possible British weaknesses in the Far East.

When Britain declared war against Germany in 1914, all four of the Dominions had declared war immediately after. In the First World War, Canadian, South African and ANZAC troops were critical in the Allied war effort and played decisive roles in several of the most important battles on the Western Front. The British Raj in India had also contributed thousands of troops to the British war effort. By the 1930s, the Dominions had achieved complete foreign policy independence from Britain in the 1931 Statute of Westminster and Indian nationalism led by Gandhi and the Indian National Congress was becoming a persistent if not serious threat at this point to the Raj's colonial power. Chamberlain thus feared that if Britain went to war, the Commonwealth and Empire would not automatically support Britain, as it had done twenty-five years earlier and he firmly believed that without complete Empire support, Britain would be doomed to defeat. At Munich, all of the Dominions had put pressure on Czechoslovakia to accept the settlement over the Sudetenland. Thus, if Chamberlain had taken Britain to war over the Czech crisis, he feared that he would not be able to convince the Dominions that such a war was justified and that they should support Britain.

It is of historical certainty that the entrance of the United States into the First World War in 1917 gave the Allies a much-needed boost to their war effort and was a determining factor in the final defeat of a war-weary Germany the following year. Chamberlain calculated that if another general European war erupted, Britain would need the support of the United States to prevail. However, President Roosevelt, who detested European fascism and was enormously sympathetic to the British position, was strong handicapped to openly support Britain due to the strong feeling of isolationism in the American public. In a meeting with the British ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay in September 1938, Roosevelt made it clear that he could not send troops to Europe in the event of war. So, even before the Munich Conference, Chamberlain was aware that the United States would remain neutral.

Third and finally, Chamberlain had to consider important British interests in the Far East, where Britain's most prosperous and strategically important colonies were located - Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Burma and of course, India. There was great fear in the Foreign Office and the military Chief of Staff that an Anglo-German war in Europe would encourage the Japanese to expand their interests in the Far East at the expense of Britain. This fear was further stoked in September 1938, when Japan revealed it had been in secret negotiations with Germany over a possible military alliance. There was also a fear that an Anglo-German war would intensify the campaign of Indian nationalists and Britain would have to expend precious resources to support the Raj. Both Australia and New Zealand were insisting that Britain maintain a formidable Royal Navy presence in Far Eastern waters to deter Japanese aggression. With these interests too great to abandon, Chamberlain was confident that British military forces would be spread across the globe and Europe could not possibly be given first priority, as there was an accepted pessimism that an Anglo-German war would undoubtedly cause the conflict to spread to the Far East.

Chamberlain essentially knew that under these circumstances that Britain could not defend Czechoslovakia. All he could hope for was more time to prepare Britain for war, in terms of continued remilitarisation and to diplomatically work to ensure Dominion support. However, it must also be noted that in 1938, even the seemingly-confident Hitler was convinced that he could not fight Britain to victory - leading to the contentious argument that if Britain had pushed Germany into war in 1938, the war would have been both shorter and much less destructive.

Chamberlain, realising the constraints and limitations on the declining British hegemonic power, did all he could to give Britain more time and breathing space to prepare. Although he remained dedicated to maintaining peace until the very last moment, he succeeded in ensuring that when the Second World War did begin, Britain was in a much stronger military and diplomatic position than it had been a year before at Munich. This is something he should be thanked for.

(My sources for this posts include extracts from Chamberlain's own diaries and the article "Munich's Lessons Reconsidered", by Robert J. Beck, in International Security, Vol. 14, No. 2)

The Importance of Australia, Mother Britain's Favourite Child

For a frequently underestimated and overlooked nation, Australia is one of the countries that I admire most. It is a tolerant, progressive society and a force for real good in the world. Although the world's big powers often poo-poo the importance of Australian input and opinion, Australians are becoming more and more confident in themselves, their national identity and their growing clout in the world. This growth of Australian power has been subtle and out of the limelight but it is there and it has been building momentum steadily throughout the last decade. This is important as Australia approaches the ten year anniversary of its narrow decision to not strike out on its own and become a republic, severing the link with the British monarchy and Britain forever.

As the anniversary approaches, no doubt the republican debate will again become a prominent one in Australian politics. The pro-republic camp is by no means a small, nearly always ignored group that is the case for the British pro-republic equivalent. In the 1999 referendum, Australians voted by 54% to retain the British monarchy. Not an enormous majority by any means. But in May 2008, a poll by Roy Morgan Research found that the scales had slightly tipped in the republicans' favour - their results found that 45% of Australians polled favoured a transition to a republic, whilst only 42% supported the retention of the monarchy. 13% were undecided. The poll also found that if Prince Charles was crowned King, only 32% would favour retaining the monarchy (another good reason why we should skip a generation and go straight to William). However, Roy Morgan also points out that although the republicans' had a slight lead, support for their cause is at its lowest level since 1993, when former PM Paul Keating raised the republican issue.

Alas, the current federal Labor government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has no plans whatsoever to unearth the republican can of worms again and propose a new referendum. It believes that there is no pressing political need to decide the issue and that it is a decision that will be made in "due time". The Labor Party traditionally though supports the switch to republic and many prominent politicians of the opposition - and conservative - Liberal Party also desire a republic, including current leader Malcolm Turnbull and former federal treasurer, Peter Costello. Thus, with prominent republican advocates across the political spectrum, the anniversary will no doubt bring the constitutional issue to the forefront in Canberra again, regardless of whether Kevin Rudd wants to face it or not.

However, if a referendum was announced in the near future for whatever political reasons, what I believe would be in the republicans' favour is the fact that Australia is now much more confident in itself and its identity than it was 10 years ago - but why is this? Firstly, the history books will remember Australia as the only Western industrialised nation that did not succumb to recession in the Great Financial Crisis of the late 2000s. Although it hasn't been all economic plain-sailing for the Aussies, this is a fact that they are proud of and something that Kevin Rudd can happily tell as an interesting anecdote at important international summits. Secondly, Australia has a new, larger world role due to its membership of the G20 group of leading world economies, which will now replace the G8 as the most important international economic forum. Thirdly, in developing its economic links in the Far East and being blessed with a fabulous treasure chest of natural resources, Canberra has gained a greater ability to influence resource-hungry China and import-dependent Japan. Australia is also a lead trading partner with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which includes regional powerhouses such as Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. The news that broke over the weekend that there is discussion of an enormous East Asian free-trade area being developed between ASEAN, South Korea, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand (possibly the US) would only be in Australia's favour. Fourthly, Australia has received much international praise for its humanitarian and peacekeeping roles in its own Oceanic neighbourhood over the last decade, particularly in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Fifthly, Kevin Rudd is a renowned and popular  international statesman, building good relationships with Barrack Obama, European leaders and even Hu Jintao, Chinese President (it helps that he speaks fluent Mandarin). He has also worked hard to correct past Australian wrongs, the most prominent being a public apology to the Aborigine population and reversing the former Liberal government's immigration policies concerning the internment of "boat people" asylum seekers. And finally, Australia is viewed as a leading advocate on issues such as climate change and development aid - the Australian delegation will definitely make itself heard at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.

With this newfound confidence and growing world role, Australia may one day be happy to say goodbye to the British monarchy and finally complete its transition from former colony to fully independent nation-state. I don't plan to argue whether or not this would be a good or a bad thing, as it is the people of Australia who can only decide that. But I do believe that if Australia did wave an ultimate goodbye to Britain, the impact on Britain and the British people will be much larger and deeper than anyone had previously contemplated. 

To the British, the "Australian Dream" is much more enticing than the "American Dream". The British, although culturally, politically and linguistically close to the United States, hold a much greater esteem for our cousins Down Under. This could be because Australia is still relatively fresh in the memory of British history, as it was only heavily settled in the second half of the nineteenth century, unlike the United States which achieved its independence from Britain nearly a century before. We simply love anything Australian and every year thousands of Brits desert Blighty for a new life in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane etc. The ideals and images of Canada and New Zealand just don't compare to the image of the barbie on the beach, the great Outback and who can name a Canadian or New Zealand monument that provokes as much emotion as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Opera House or Uluru (Ayers Rock)? British Government statistics released in September revealed that 395,000 Brits left the UK for good in 2008 and the most popular destination was not Spain, as one may expect, but Australia. To many Brits, Australia is perceived as being cleaner, friendlier, better governed and offering a much better quality of life overall (which, sad to say, is broadly true). It is estimated that approximately 1,150,000 British nationals now reside in Australia, by far the largest group of non-Australians in residence. 

So the news one day that Australia has decided to ditch the monarchy I am sure will come as a personal affront to many British people. This isn't saying that our special affinity for the Aussies will end - it will be very much like two long-term lovers deciding to split on amicable terms. The residual feelings will not go away immediately but they will eventually make up and become the best of friends. After all, even if Australia is not the most prominent or powerful of Britain's former children, it is certainly our favourite.

I have had the enormous privilege to visit Australia. And I have to admit, if I didn't love the historic, cultural, linguistic and culinary traditions of Europe so much, I would seriously consider packing up and embarking on the "Australian Dream" myself.

Definitely Not an Early Christmas Present: What does the BNP and the Economy have in Common?

On Thursday night, I was not disappointed. "Question Time" was a complete and utter public execution of Nick Griffin and his horrific views. He tried to be moderate, smiled a lot, laughed at criticisms against him and tried to act all statesmanlike and convince us - the viewers - that he was now a credible, mainstream politician, leading a credible, mainstream party that deserved our vote. And why does the British National Party deserve our vote, in his view? Because the BNP is the only political party committed to protecting the values and interests of the "indigenous" people of these fair isles - a.k.a. the Whites.

It was all a complete farce, mere propaganda and whenever he opened his mouth, it was so easy to see through his slimy, racist and utterly disgusting rhetoric. Some of the most "gems" that came from his mouth included; his argument that he could not discuss his past Holocaust denial and his change of mind regarding the slaughter of 6 million innocent people due to European law restricting his ability to do so; claiming that David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan was almost completely "non-violent" and that Muslims coming to this country must acknowledge that Britain must remain "a fundamentally British and Christian country based on Western democratic values and not on the eternal values of the Koran." (What do Muslims do when they get to the border? Sign a disclaimer?)

Regarding the other panelists, I was most impressed with the performance of Bonnie Greer, American playwright who has lived in this country for around twenty years. As one friend summarised her performance; "she was FIERCE!" Yes, she was. Her use of dry sarcasm and humour was immensely effective in cutting Griffin down. I was also pleased with the performance of Jack Straw and his most impressive line of the night was his highlighting that millions of African and Asian soldiers fought for our country during both World Wars (though my cynical side did respond to this with; "yes, but under imperial subjugation") to the response of enormous applause in the audience.

I have two criticisms though of the show - first, it wasn't "Question Time" as we know and love it - it was more the "Let's Bash Nick Griffin Into the Ground Show", which although I don't disagree with, I was concerned with the fact that he was never really allowed to speak his mind. Within ten-fifteen seconds of him speaking, one of the other panelists had cut in. My point being that the longer Griffin spoke about a certain issue, the more ridiculous and awful his position would have increasingly appeared. Second, only one other issue, besides the BNP was discussed on the show, that being Jan Moir's homophobic article regarding the death of Stephen Gately. Griffin did again shoot himself in the heart with his statement that two men kissing was "creepy". But again, I think if the show had included three or four more topical issues of the week,  these roundabout but important issues would again have highlighted Griffin and the BNP as the complete circus act that they are.

But, on the whole, the show was a success in highlighting how disgusting Griffin and the BNP are. I'm very pleased that the BBC didn't cave in to the pressure to censor Griffin's appearance. Yes, there is the concern that the BNP will see a growth in support, monopolising their self-perception of being the "victim of the Establishment" but as I've explained in my previous article, I believe that this would only be a short-term trend. By allowing Griffin to appear we safeguarded democratic principles but at the same time highlighted to the nation just how abhorrent he is. I stand by my belief that it would have been wrong to stop his appearance and leave him and the BNP "at the fringes" because - whether we like it or not - they are no longer at the fringes. Out of the four levels of governance in this country (EU level, national level, devolved level, local level), the BNP is now represented in three of them and they might conquer the fourth level at the General Election if we take the attitude of ignoring them. The only way to successfully combat the BNP is continuously drag them into the spotlight and through reasoned debate and argument ensure that they cannot scrape even a tiny piece of credibility and legitimacy to their name. To do anything but reasoned and fair debate would play into their hands of being "victims".

So, referencing a question asked during the show; "is tonight an early Christmas present for the BNP?", I must conclude the matter by firmly saying that no, it definitely was not an early Christmas present and that Jack Straw was right in his summary - it has been an awful week for the BNP.
___________________________________

In other news, I was deeply disappointed to read yesterday that the UK economy is STILL in recession. For the third quarter, most economists had been predicting a tiny return to growth, which would have technically ended the British recession. Instead, the economy contracted by another 0.4%, largely as a result of the continuing slump in the services sector. Yes, this is a small contraction compared to the economic chaos at the beginning of this year, but it's a contraction nonetheless and the UK is now officially in its longest recession since records began.

This is even more upsetting and frustrating considering that France, Germany and Japan have all exited recession in the second quarter, three economies that were lambasted as being sluggish and stagnant during the good times, whilst UK growth roared ahead. Oh, how the tables have turned. The UK is now expected to be the last of the world's most industrialised nations to exit recession - even Italy is predicted to return to growth before the UK! Of course, we can attribute the continuing decline in UK GDP due to the fact that unlike any of our European partners, our economy is heavily reliant on banking and services. The City of London was, along with Wall Street, the epicentre for the world economic crisis that had already begun but rapidly accelerated following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September '08.

It is the psychological impact that concerns me most about the UK still being in recession. In my view, the psychological consequences on a nation in recession is just as important as the actual economic and financial facts and figures. An example of this is the response of the currency markets when the news was reported - the pound quickly sank like a stone against the dollar and the euro, as twitchy investors dumped sterling. 

Had the UK returned to growth, it is obvious to state that this would not have happened. The news would also have had a positive impact on the regular man in the street, the consumer, the employer, the employee. A return to growth would have resulted in a nationwide sigh of relief. People would have been convinced that light was finally returning to their lives, that the worst was definitely over and that recovery was now a concrete fact, rather than an obscure plausibility. Behaviour would have been changed for the better, even if in only small measures. For instance, maybe the secretary on the High Street would have let herself buy that slightly more expensive dress or pair of shoes and this would have contributed to the recovery in the retail market. A recession, in my opinion, is just as much about an individual's mind as it is about the state of the national economic performance.

Of course, even if we had exited recession in the third quarter, enormous challenges still remain for the UK economy, the two most pressing being the urgent reduction in the budget deficit and unemployment. But an exit would have been the first bit of economic good news we would have heard in months and the value of this must not be underestimated.

However, with yesterday's news, looks like it's going to be another Credit Crunch Christmas - at least for us poor Brits, that is. 

Can British Democracy Survive the Challenge of "Question Time?"

Tonight, following the BBC News at Ten I will be glued to the television screen to watch this evening's edition of "Question Time", the slightly bland yet brilliantly partisan current affairs show which allows members of the public to interact with influential Cabinet members, opposition politicians and other "people-in-the-know", such as journalists, writers and academics. And tonight will be a very memorable episode - the night when Nick Griffin, leader of Britain's far-right British National Party (BNP) will be making an appearance. Also on the panel will be Jack Straw, Justice Secretary and one of only two Labour Cabinet members I like (the other being Alan Johnson, Home Secretary), Conservative Baroness Warsi, born to immigrant parents from Pakistan, Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman and Bonnie Greer, a playwright who has worked mainly with ethnic minorities and women. Also, it has been reported that the show's long-time host, the simply fantastic David Dimbleby has been given free reign to push and challenge Griffin on the BNP's views and beliefs.

So yes, a superb cast of characters that will make for a very intense, memorable show. But one may wonder why I am so excited about this particular "Question Time". Many of my friends have either signed petitions to try and ban Griffin's appearance due to his extremist views or have declared that they simply will not watch the show because they perceive it as the BBC giving the BNP a legitimate platform for a party that is desperate to win legitimacy and acceptance for its absolutely God-awful views. Their rationale is; "we know their views, I think they're horrific, so why should I watch a show that is giving them publicity on a nationwide level? Ignoring them is surely the better option." The latter I agree with - we all have the right to ignore other people's views. It is our choice of course whether or not we watch the show. But the former viewpoint, that they should be outright banned from appearing is frightening in itself.

Fundamentally, I do take the belief that we simply cannot censor views that are found repulsive by the majority of citizens. Even the minority have a right to express their views. To censor the BNP would be hypocritical, undemocratic and would give ourselves one thing in common with the horrid, authoritarian regimes which regularly censored with brutality any view that was contrary to their political creed. Yes, democracy is a political creed, but its uniqueness, unlike oligarchy, tyranny or even anarchy, is that it is a creed that allows itself to be criticised openly by its citizens. This is not just regarding the political structure of institutions or the behaviour of elected officials within the democracy but the very philisophical nature of democracy itself can be open to criticism and even attack. To those who argue that democracy should be protected from its foes, as the radical members of the Socialist Workers Party have argued with me on the campuses of LSE and UCL when trying to get me to sign their petition, I scoff at them - democracy can perfectly survive by itself and the historical record has shown this to be the case. Yes, Europe descended into fascism in the 1930s but democracy prevailed, even though it took an enormously destructive war to ensure this victory. Then democracy fought a forty-year stand-off with Soviet Communism and also prevailed. With this, one argues that democracy's strength lies in its robustness, its ability to be fluid and adaptable to the changing needs of society, which is something that no other political ideology can equal. This is why it was victorious before and this will ensure its continued victory well into the unknown future.

Thus, I implore anyone to tell me how dangerous the single appearance of the leader of a fringe, radical party on a late-night panel show really is to British democracy - if anything, the expenses scandals that have consumed the mainstream parties is much more dangerous to democracy. Of course, I'm not saying that we should be complacent. It is very worrying that the BNP have notched up not only more local councillors to their tally in recent elections but also two MEPs, but one must look at the facts. Where the BNP won their Euro seats, it was not because their support had suddenly shot up. No, it was the fact that it was the Labour vote that slumped to such a low that the proportional representation system used in EP elections allowed the BNP to sneak in.

On the Today programme this morning, I found it very interesting to learn that it was an appearance on a similar-format show to "Question Time" in 1984 that caused the French far-right party Le Front National to become a mainstream party and subsequently double its share of the vote (approx. 7%) in that year's elections to the European Parliament. In 2002, Le Front National's leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen actually fought the second round run-off with Jacques Chirac to become French President. This shocked and horrified not only the French but the entire world. In a nutshell, Chirac won by a comfortable majority. The French had recoiled that they had allowed their democracy to be put under such risk and although Chirac was far from the ideal president in many French voters' eyes, they voted for him to defend the ideals that French democracy holds so dear.

The means in which the Today programme reported the similarities to Le Pen's 1984 television appearance seemed to be implying an ominous warning for what may happen after tonight's "Question Time" - the legitimisation of the BNP in mainstream politics, a surge in membership and greater electoral success in the future. However, 1984 was a long time ago and even 2002, events and processes have moved forward. Today, Le Front National, under younger, fresher leadership is even starting to moderate its most radical, far-right policies in an effort to be seen again as a viable mainstream party. So although Le Pen came within an inch of clinching victory in 2002, democracy and the democratic process in all its fluidity may be having a moderating effect on extremist parties the more they are in the political limelight and the more scrutiny they are exposed to. Le Front National is not the only example of this - even Italy's troubled democracy (see article below) has seen the moderation of some of its most extremist parties in recent years, such as La Lega Nord.

This, I am certain, will be the same for the BNP. The more they are exposed and challenged on their hideous views, the more marginal and discredited they will become and will have to moderate themselves. The alternative would be electoral oblivion. Yes, this may not happen immediately and the short-term effects may look pretty alarming and in their favour. But democracy is very self-confident. It knows that it will prevail eventually and that it has many weapons in its arsenal in order to exterminate the scourges of extremism and totalitarianism.

"Question Time" is just one of those weapons. So let Nick Griffin appear. Let him have his moment in the spotlight and let him try to convince us that the deportation of all non-Caucasian citizens back to their country of origin is a policy that we should embrace. Let the other panellists and audience members tear him to shreds. And let us sit back in our living rooms confident that democracy will surely know the right course of action to take with such a disgusting, small, horrible little man and his equally disgusting, small and horrible party. We may not see the results immediately, but the process moving towards that result is already underway and going strong.

A Victory - But still Dark Days Ahead for Italian Democracy

Yesterday, Italy was saved from potentially becoming Western Europe's first post-war dictatorship - Italy's Constitutional Court finally overthrew a ludicrous law granting immunity to the four highest serving public officials in the country, including Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Quoting one Italian; "at least there are still nine intelligent people left in Italy", referring to the nine judges in the Court that voted to repeal the law.

One may wonder why I'm using such strong language in this case - "Europe's first post-war dictatorship". It sounds very over-the-top and over dramatic. However, a supposedly democratic country would not be the host to an enormous rally (supposedly three hundred thousand) in one of the capital city's biggest squares calling for press freedom. You would expect it in a Latin American country perhaps but not Piazza del Popolo in Rome, which occurred last Saturday. The rally, in my opinion, was perfectly justified - since returning to power in April 2008, Berlusconi has raged a relentless war against the media outlets that are not part of his vast business empire, growing in intensity and ferocity in particular following the announcement of his divorce and his sordid, seedy sexual shenanigans earlier this year. Notable examples have included his suing of Italian left-wing newspaper "La Repubblica" concerning its "intrusive" and "offensive" reporting into his private life and the declaration by one of the pro-Berlusconi newspapers ("Il Giornale") that the editor of the Vatican newspaper "Avvenire", Dino Boffo had had a sordid and secret homosexual affair. The latter happened only a few days after the Vatican expressed its anger and disgust at Berlusconi's "arrogance" concerning the sex scandals he simply cannot escape. Berlusconi also has his eyes set on suing overseas publications that have also heavily and critically reported the sex scandals - these include Britain's "The Times", Spain's "El Pais" and France's "Nouvel Observateur".

Now, this is truly horrific behaviour for a European Head of State. What is really concerning is that Berlusconi truly believes he is in the right and that he is being personally attacked by a relentless, vengeful left-wing, communist conspiracy, both within and outside Italy and that he is the true victim. This is partially right - the Italian left, headed by the Partito Democratico (Democratic Party) absolutely despises him and desperately wants to see him go as leader of the right but at the moment, it is sadly in no fit state to be an effective opposition, no more so than the right is fit to govern. Thus, with Italian parliamentary democracy in such a mess, the ability of the media to be free takes on more importance for ensuring the continuation of a democratic civil society. In a democracy, one of the key functions of a free media is to critically hold the government to account in the interests of the people, regardless of each individual publications' political leanings. Berlusconi is doing everything in his power to squash this ability of the media, as many distinguished dictators have done so in the past.

However, it was the immunity law that continuously sent the chill of authoritarianism down Italy's spine. Berlusconi's basic rationale for the immunity law was that "troublesome" law suits and legal questions would distract the country's rulers from effectively getting on with the task of, well, ruling. Again, this is a device used by countless dictators to protect themselves from the crimes they've committed against their people. Obviously, Berlusconi is not a brutal dictator, leading death squads and massacring his people. But the principle that some are above the law is there and that principle alone means that the law itself has become endangered to abuse.

Alas, until the Constitutional Court struck down the immunity law last night. And its decision is final, there is no appeals process. Now, Berlusconi faces the very real prospect of being put on trial in a number of corruption cases, the largest one involving British lawyer David Mills. If Berlusconi was a joke before, imagine how funny it would be if Italy's Prime Minister was also standing in the dock and facing the possibility of prison. For a European country - hell, any democratic country - this is completely unacceptable. That is why he must go now. Obviously he won't, and I read this morning that his response to the ruling was;

"The Constitutional Court is a political organ. The trials against me are a farce. Viva Italia and Viva Berlusconi! I will go on. We must govern for five years, with or without the law. I never believed because with a Constitutional Court with 11 left-wing judges, it was impossible that it would be approved."

How many things are wrong with that!?!?!? "The Constitutional Court is a political organ." Newsflash Berlusconi, SO ARE YOU!!! And unlike the Constitutional Court, (which technically is not a political organ but an institutional organ) you're expendable, whether you accept it or not. "We must govern for five years, with or without the law." A nation without law is a nation in chaos. Here, Berlusconi is implying that because he's been popularly elected by the will of the Italian people, he cannot be constrained by the institutions of state and the law because that would be undemocratic - the will of the people is paramount. In his eyes, the law is the enemy of the people if they dare try and constrain him. This again bears the stamp of authoritarianism. Again, throughout the world, dictators have condemned the law that seeks to constitutionally constrain them and have taken steps to unravel it to support their positions. This has been most effective in countries such as in Latin America and Asia where the concept of the rule of law has been historically weak and unstable.

Italy is not one of these countries. Since the end of the Second World War, it has had strong institutions and a strong civil society. Yes, the country does have its problems and it is a national past-time for Italians to see how far they can stretch the law to their own personal advantage but when it comes to the fundamentals - freedom, equality, justice - they are just as dedicated as any other European. So, I seriously doubt that Berlusconi could force through legislation to change the constitutional framework in which the Court operates to favour the elected government. I'm confident that if he was stupid enough to try, the resulting backlash from the media, the Italian people and even the European Union would quickly lead to his downfall. Italy's President, who also has a role as Guardian of the Constitution, Giorgio Napolitano would refuse to sign into law any new legislation that weakens Italy's constitutional safeguards at the expense of Berlusconi's own position.

What can Berlusconi do next then? Obviously the Partito Democratico and left-wing press have called for his immediate resignation. This isn't going happen. Another possibility is that Berlusconi is forced out by his own coalition, most likely by Gianfranco Fini, the current President of the Chamber of Deputies, although there are doubts that he is in a strong enough position to oust Berlusconi. Yet another possibility is that Berlusconi's coalition partners, La Lega Nord (the Northern League) could walk out in disgust, resulting in the collapse of the government. Also unlikely, as this would lead to elections and the right is desperate to avoid them. Even Berlusconi, the "man of the people" fears going to elections, rather ironically. What appears most likely is that Berlusconi will battle on, trying to ignore the ruling and do everything possible to shaft the judiciary, which will be now whetting its appetite to begin the trials against him to bear.

A victory, yes, a victory badly needed for a democracy that is being tested to the limits. But the danger has not passed yet. Only when Berlusconi is gone will Italian democracy be safer and more secure. What's so frightening is that we still have no idea when - if it all - that will happen. And we can rest assured, he won't be going without a fight. And in true Italian style, it will be a very dramatic, show-stopping performance when it does happen.