And so it has come to pass: after the resignation of Gordon Brown as the UK's prime minister, we now have a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition after both parties reached an agreement. In a previous post, I explained my wholehearted support for the Liberal Democrats based on two issues which are most meaningful to me. To paraphrase the notion of a "single issue voter," I am a "double issue voter." The first issue of course is migration as I am but a migrant worker here in the UK. Second is the place of the UK in Europe. While the woes of Greece have dragged the euro down somewhat, I still regret not being paid in a currency which still promises to be a better store of value going forward than the pound. For another thing, what many casual observers seem to miss is that the US is racking up record deficits month after month while the Greek episode is occasioning moves towards limiting fiscal incontinence that Americans have no inclination to solve.

Actually, I am quite surprised the Liberal Democrats came away with as many Cabinet positions as they did given the circumstances--five, in fact. Still, the point remains that the two parties have longstanding differences on the matter of the UK's place in Europe. Earlier on, if you recall, there were hopes that the famously Eurosceptic Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic would put off signing on to the Lisbon Treaty for long enough so that the British Conservatives would come to power and put it to a referendum which would naturally doom the treaty [1, 2]. Thankfully, that has not come to pass.

Remember that Nick Clegg is a former Minister of European Parliament (MEP), and that he met his Spanish wife while serving as an MEP. During the televised debates, he famously chastised the Tories for aligning themselves not with the Europe People's Party--an more acceptable face of conservatism--to one which included "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists and homophobes" [!] Hence possible infighting over Europe can occur within the coalition government over matters such as aid contributions to Greece (which haven't been called for, anyway) and bank regulation emanating from Brussels that encompasses the City of London.

Already, negotiations for a coalition government were supposedly thrown into some disarray as a leaked memo was unearthed revealing the Tories renewing Margaret Thatcher's aggressive attitude towards Brussels. Red lines, the European superstate, and all that jazz which has emanated from 10 Downing Street for years and years is once more...

A secret letter outlining Tory plans towards the EU has complicated efforts to secure a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. The document, obtained by the Observer, was written by civil servants last week on the assumption of an outright Tory victory at the general election. It adopts a firm approach to the EU, and stresses that shadow foreign secretary William Hague would have adopted a tough approach to repatriation of powers in a meeting of EU foreign minister to be held tomorrow.

It would have set EU leaders on a crash course with the new Conservative government, with demands for the return of powers over criminal justice, and social and employment policy during the first term of a Conservative government. The staunchly eurosceptic stance will prove a major sticking point in David Cameron's talks with Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg today, as the two men desperately try to put together a viable coalition government.

The pro-EU Lib Dems are likely to be unnerved by the letter, especially given explicit statements from Mr Cameron assuring voters that EU policy would constitute a Tory red line in negotiations. The letter, which would have been written from the foreign secretary to the prime minister, stresses that "the British relationship with the EU has changed with our election".

Mr Hague planned to tell his EU counterparts: "Rest assured that we seek engagement, not confrontation. But our aim is to achieve these commitments during this parliament. "You will find us firm but fair, playing a leading role, fighting our corner, practical and straight-talking." Tory sources told the Observer newspaper they had no knowledge of the letter last night.

However, you need to remember that, like many political parties, there are different wings even within the Conservative Party. In it there is a long line of grandees who are actually positively disposed to the European project unlike Thatcher and her figurative offspring. Think of grand old folks like the last Hong Kong Governor Christopher Patten or, more pertinently for today's example, Kenneth Clarke. Clarke is a Tory evergreen who has served in various posts for Thatcher and Major--Chancellor, Health, and Business Secretary--and now as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. (Being the shadow business secretary, Clarke was in line to fill that position again until the Liberal Democrats' Vince Cable took that role as part of the coalition.) The move is seen by many as another concession to the Liberal Democrats. By placing a pro-Europe Tory in the cabinet, he symbolizes that the new government will (hopefully) not stray too far in the Eurosceptic direction to the discomfort of the Lib Dems.

The infamously Tory-leaning Daily Telegraph describes Clarke, a man who's not endeared himself to many Tories by consistently backing scrapping the pound in favour of the euro, thusly:

Ken Clarke is one of the "big beasts" of the last Conservative government, and was the chancellor under John Major's government. He is credited with leading Britain out of the recession of the 1990s. He held a wide variety of other ministerial posts under both Thatcher and Major. Staunchly pro-Europe, he is a controversial figure on the Conservative front bench.

It will of course be interesting to see how the odd bedfellows, the Tories and Liberal Democrats, try to shape a cohesive European policy especially on security and economic matters. The choice of Clarke is an important gesture. However, I think it signals more of a consolidation of how far in the UK has become involved in the wider scheme of European integration than of how much further it wants to get involved.

The usual Tory threat position remains--any further movement into European integration should be subject to a referendum. Given how poisoned the UK media is against Europe--the Murdoch media machine especially--I don't think even moderate strides towards embracing Europe more are possible. Then again, it's good the Liberal Democrats are there to temper runaway Eurosceptic dyspeptics.

At any rate, here is the full text of what has been agreed on Europe; at least on paper:

• We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.
• We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU's existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.
• We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty - a 'referendum lock'. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.
• We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.
• We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.
• We agree that we will strongly defend the UK's national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.
• We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels [instead of shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels].
• We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.

As British viewers will know, one of the believed sources of New Labour's resilience has been its odd alliance with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Aside from the obvious past benefit of backing a winner, New Labour has also put some distance between itself and the European project. Rupert Murdoch has always feared Brussels' encroachment on his media empire's expanse here in Britain on the grounds of competition law. Perhaps sniffing that New Labour's time was up, Murdoch famously shifted allegiances to David Cameron prior to the upcoming election.

In perceived retaliation for shifting allegiances, Labour revoked the Murdoch-invested Sky Sports' rights to air the Ashes--an important event for cricket watchers--late last year:

Labour will exact revenge over the Sun's criticism of Gordon Brown by axing Sky Sports' exclusive rights to live TV coverage of The Ashes, it emerged today. In a major blow to the Rupert Murdoch-owned channel, a government review of so-called “crown jewels” sports events will recommend tomorrow that the England-Australia cricket series must be restored to free-to-air channels.

The protected list of events includes the Olympics, football's World Cup, the FA Cup, Wimbledon and other contests considered to have “national resonance”. The Ashes series was cut from the list in recent years and this summer millions of fans missed out on live TV coverage of England's victory because they did not subscribe to the Sky channel.

The move comes within hours of the Prime Minister phoning Mr Murdoch to complain about attacks on him by the Sun, which recently switched its backing to the Tories. Downing Street insisted today that Mr Brown had “enormous personal regard for Rupert Murdoch”. But one Cabinet minister made clear that he was delighted at the decision. A senior Labour MP said: “The political context of this has definitely changed over the last three or four months.”

With the looming prospect of a hung parliament and a Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance, the Murdoch media empire is now in a quandary it didn't forecast as the Tories aren't doing well enough to win a parliamentary majority at the moment. Essentially, did they back the wrong horse? Michael Wolff writes on this possibility:

Several years ago, Rebekah Wade (now Rebekah Brooks), then the editor of Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloid, started trying to convince Murdoch that his newspapers should support David Cameron, the Conservative party candidate for prime minister.

This took some doing because Murdoch had become a good friend and pretty loyal supporter of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. What’s more, Murdoch’s wife, Wendi, is a great buddy of Brown’s wife, Sarah. But Wade/Brooks is persistent and, in Murdoch’s words, “knows how to work my family.” She convinced Murdoch’s son, James, that Cameron was the certain future. James then went to work on his father, and a reluctant Murdoch—telling everyone who would listen that Cameron was too slick by half—sourly went along.

Now, Murdoch likes winners, even more than he likes Conservatives. One of the most famous headlines of his career appeared in the Sun after the Conservative victory in Britain 1992: “It's The Sun Wot Won It.” Murdoch is still stewing over an ill-timed and inept endorsement of John McCain over Barack Obama (again, against his better judgment—Murdoch likes Obama and was convinced to back McCain by Roger Ailes and New York Post editor Col Allen).

And now, David Cameron’s not-that-long-ago-all-but-certain-looking bid for prime minister is faltering. In fact, after Murdoch’s endorsement, the Financial Times began running a graph charting Cameron’s downward movement under the headline “It’s The Sun Wot Lost it” [see here] Last week, the Lib-Dem candidate Nick Clegg—the third party candidate in the race—did so well in a television debate that he began to emerge as the logical alternative to Labor. This has caused the Murdoch papers to unleash a full-scale attack on Clegg—with hardly any pretense other than to help Cameron—now known as the “Kill Klegg” campaign.

Hit fast-forward and we now have the pretty incredible spectacle of one of the Murdoch sons accosting the editor of rival newspaper The Independent for having the temerity to suggest something logical. If The Sun had won in for the Conservatives in 1992, then the Murdoch machine acknowledges its widely-read tabloid affects voting decisions in Britain. In recent advertisements, The Independent makes a play on this by suggesting that reading it was a way to allow voters to decide for themselves and not The Sun. Unhappiness in the Murdoch camp triggered a brouhaha in which Rebekkah Brooks, chief executive of News International, and James Murdoch went to the headquarters of The Independent to cuss out its editor:

After a lifetime at the helm of the world's most powerful media organisation and in the crosshairs of the left, Rupert Murdoch has, of necessity, developed a reasonably thick skin. The Dirty Digger is how he is disrespectfully referred to by Private Eye. Spitting Image always portrayed him as a shouty figure, irredeemably uncouth. But his son James seems less ready to turn the other cheek, as it were. And this would seem to be the most plausible explanation for why Murdoch the younger, the chairman and chief executive News Corporation Europe and Asia, caused a media sensation on Wednesday by striding across the editorial floor at the Independent newspaper to berate its editor-in-chief, Simon Kelner.

In common with so many of the unpleasant episodes involving angry young men in modern London, it was a squall about reputation and respect. The newly relaunched Independent had produced a series of relatively innocuous promotional ads assuring readers: "Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election. You will."

There is no evidence that Murdoch senior has even seen the ads, but witnesses report that directly upon seeing Kelner, who was supervising the final production stages of that night's paper, Murdoch the younger began angry remonstrations. "What are you f**king playing at?" was his opening gambit.

A bewildered Kelner quickly ushered his visitors into his office, where they remained for what have been described as "frank and full discussions" for another 20 minutes. All were grim-faced as Murdoch, carrying a promotional copy of the Independent, accused the rival editor of breaking the unwritten code that proprietors do not attack each other and of besmirching his father's reputation. With his piece said and with the matter unresolved, the aggrieved media mogul left.

The episode left experienced journalists shocked. "They strode in like a scene out of Dodge City," said one. "Murdoch scanned the room, you could almost hear him saying 'Where is he?'" Another likened the arrival in the newsroom of Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International, to a mafia visit. "It was so bizarre. He came in all menace. You know the sort of thing: 'The boss has heard what you have been saying about him. He doesn't like it...'"

Earlier that day, Brooks had telephoned Kelner to raise concerns about the personalised ad. It appears to have been a relatively cordial conversation. The two have in the past socialised as part of a high-powered media set centred in Oxfordshire. Blenheim is the Murdoch family retreat and it is said that Kelner has spent time "chatting to Rupert" while staying in the area as Brooks's guest...

There are, of course, reasons why Murdoch junior might be particularly cranky right now...there is unease that despite the full blooded, war-footing support of the Sun, David Cameron's Conservatives are failing to establish the sort of lead that was expected of them. Blogging today, Murdoch's biographer Michael Woolf said jitters among the two lieutenants are inevitable because Brooks persuaded James Murdoch to throw the company's weight behind Cameron's Conservatives and the young Murdoch persuaded his father. The magnate does not like bad advice, says Woolf. "Murdoch likes winners, even more than he likes Conservatives."

Game on, then. Already, broadcast regulator Ofcom is forcing Sky's hand to offer its programmes at lower fees to other cable TV providers. In the event that Tories don't figure in the next government or government coalition, expect more bashing of News Corporation to come.

As things stand, the upcoming British general elections scheduled for the sixth of May are going to result in a hung parliament or having no party with a clear majority. In that event, a coalition government will need to be formed, with the Liberal Democrats and Labour being more natural allies than the Lib Dems and the Conservatives or even a grand coalition of Labour and the Conservaties. Matters are complicated by the Liberal Democrats stating they would rather play for an outright majority than signal which other party they'd rather go into a coalition with. Now, I've expressed my strong support for the Liberal Democrats (obviously), but the chain of arguments that the Conservatives or "Tories" are putting forward now goes something like this:

1. A hung parliament causes political uncertainty that unnerves markets;
2. The last time Britain had a hung parliament, a Lib-Lab (Liberal Democrat/Labour coalition) government resulted;
3. This Lib-Lab coalition was in place when Britain had to take a £2.3 billion loan from the IMF in 1976;
4. So, if you don't want a rehash, you better vote Conservative.

The ball started rolling on this fearmongering when Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke tried to arrest the Lib Dems' momentum by bringing up this analogy yet again:

"Bond markets won't wait," the shadow business secretary said of the likely City reaction to post-election backroom deals at Westminster. "Sterling will wobble. We have seen even minor flickers in the opinion polls causing problems with interest rates in the recent past...If the British don't decide to put in a government with a working majority, and the markets think that we can't tackle our debt and deficit problems, then the IMF will have to do it for us..."

Back in London Clarke livened up the election as he recalled the Lib-Lab pact that helped prop up Jim Callaghan's government from 1977, when Labour lost its majority. Clarke, who was first elected to parliament in 1970, said: "It was a farce, it was a fiasco, it didn't save us from disaster. And I would be very, very alarmed if any prospect of that occurred on this occasion."

Clarke said that the state of Britain's public finances – the fiscal deficit of £167bn is nearly double the borrowing requirement in 1976 when the IMF was called in – was so serious it needed decisive action. "This is worse than the Conservatives took over in 1970, worse than Labour took over in 1974, worse than when we took over in 1979, and it really is going to require strong, purposeful government confident of its majority to put things into place."

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, did not go quite as far as Clarke, but he warned of the dangers of a hung parliament. "It is a statement of fact that the last time the IMF came in was when the governing party did not have a workable majority in parliament. "I don't think people should underestimate the economic consequences of political instability in this country at a time when we are running one of the largest budget deficits in the developed world, when people have questioned our credit rating and people can see there is a very serous problem with employment and business confidence. That is a very serious economic challenge. Political instability and a hung parliament – people need to be aware of the consequences of that."

And so this Clarke-borne brouhaha went into the second debate among prospective finance ministers or chancellors in British-speak (see footage here). Once more, the Tory Osborne reiterated this nightmare scenario while being rebutted by both the Liberal Democrats' Vince Cable and current Chancellor Alistair Darling, he of the famous eyebrows:

If financial markets lose confidence in the U.K. government's ability to repay its debt, the International Monetary Fund would have to be called in to offer aid, opposition Conservative spokesman George Osborne said Wednesday. In a three-way debate with Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling and Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable on BBC Television, Osborne said: "If markets don't feel confident that we could pay down our debt we'd have to call the IMF in, that's a statement of fact."

The opposition spokesman also warned that if the U.K. election results in a hung parliament, it would raise the chances of Britain needing IMF financing. "The only time we had the IMF was when we had a hung parliament," Osborne said.

Darling said Osborne's comments were scaremongering and accused the Conservatives of making unfunded promises in their budget plan. "Its pretty desperate stuff--what really does destabilise markets is where you make promises you can't pay for," the Chancellor said. "That is what makes markets roll their eyes...this really is a ridiculous approach."

Vince Cable makes essentially the same point, and for once, I do agree with Darling. What the Conservatives fail to disclose, though, is that Britain's fiscal woes were in evidence well before the UK headed to the well. Indeed, it was a Tory leader who already had an IMF rescue on the drawing boards in 1974:

Edward Heath’s Conservative Government was preparing to take “unpleasant measures” and apply for an International Monetary Fund loan in 1974, documents unearthed from the National Archive show. The disclosure will help to blunt one of the Tories’ sharpest and most enduring political barbs of the past generation: a bankrupt Labour government being forced to go “cap in hand” to the IMF in 1976.

One document — stamped “secret” and never previously published — shows how Heath met Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal Party leader, on March 2, 1974, to discuss terms for a coalition government after the general election three days earlier that had resulted in a hung Parliament. The two men discussed a range of issues, including the Liberals’ long-standing demands for electoral reform, before turning to the “measures required to deal with the economic crisis — which would be unpleasant but must be fair as well as effective — and to command confidence overseas...”

The minutes, drawn up by Robert Armstrong, Heath’s principal private secretary, state: “On a Privy Councillor basis the Prime Minister told Mr Thorpe that preparations had been made for a drawing on the International Monetary Fund.” While Mr Thorpe suggested that there would be all-party support for an immediate loan, Heath was less certain, saying: “The Labour Party might be critical of the terms of such a drawing.”

Discussions on a Privy Councillor basis are not normally released, even under the 30-year rule, and this document appears to have been put in the public domain by accident. Although IMF borrowing by Britain was not unprecedented and the scale proposed by Heath is unclear, the reference to Labour being wary of conditions attached suggests that the IMF would have required significant spending cuts.

The power-sharing talks with Mr Thorpe failed and Heath resigned two days after the meeting, allowing Harold Wilson to return to Downing Street with a minority Government. Seven months later Labour won an overall majority when a second general election was held in October. It was, however, an era of burgeoning economic crisis around the world, as well as industrial strife in Britain. Only days before the February 1974 election, monthly trade figures had shown a record £383 million deficit. In 1976 the Labour Government was plunged even deeper into that economic mire. Denis Healey, the Chancellor, was forced to turn back at Heathrow — where he had been due to catch a flight to Manila for talks with the IMF — to quell panic in the markets with a speech to the Labour conference.

The £2.3 billion IMF loan that he negotiated was offered in return for spending reductions imposed by German and American shareholders that foreshadowed the monetarist policies of Margaret Thatcher’s Government.

It is a psychological fact that persons tend to have selective memories.

An advantage of being a one-man blogging show is that I can say the IPE Zone endorses so-and-so. However, an unfortunate consequence of being a migrant worker here in Britain is that I obviously can't vote--except during council elections. At any rate, it will be no surprise to anyone that I have voted solidly for the Liberal Democrats during council elections. Being both pro-Europe and pro-migration, they tick the right boxes for yours truly. With just a little more than two weeks to go, however, the far more important general elections are nearly upon us.

Last Thursday, I tuned in to the first televised debate in British history featuring leaders of the the two major parties--Labour and the Conservatives--alongside that of perpetual also-rans the Liberal Democrats. In one sense these debates mean little since you can't directly vote for party leaders in the Westminster system. At any rate, there was Gordon "British Jobs for British Workers" Brown and David "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" Cameron (see here) alongside the still-obscure-to-the-public-at-large guy Nick Clegg. I generally thought that Nick Clegg came across best in the debate, but that was just my bias, perhaps. What I didn't expect was that so many others agreed as well. The UK's most widely-read tabloid was quick to pour cold water on a poll it had commissioned indicating that the Liberal Democrats had taken the lead: 33% to the Conservatives' 32% and Labour bringing up the rear with 28%. Remember, owner of The Sun Rupert Murdoch famously switched allegiances from New Labour to Cameron.

What riles both Conservatives and The Sun is that scare tactics on their favourite topics--Europe and migration--fail to dent Clegg. There was Tory Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague saying that a vote for Clegg was a vote for a the "European super-state." More power to Clegg and here is my take on why Liberal Democrats matter for international relations:

1. Liberal Democrats are pro-Europe, not Atlanticist: the death of the odious notion of a UK-US "special relationship" was long overdue. Like most of the rest of the world, even Britons are getting sick of America and the increasingly bankrupt way of life it represents. The Brits tried being just like America and see where it got them. Precisely nowhere--just like America. Still, Labour cannot adequately distance itself from Blair's fawning and Brown's refusal to disown the party's poodling era. The Conservatives would undoubtedly be worse in this respect given its Atlanticist leanings.

And so the Liberal Democrats are the real alternative. Nick Clegg is a solid Europhile. He even met his wife while serving as a Minister of European Parliament. While he is realistic in not wanting to put the matter of euro adoption up for immediate referendum, it definitely should be a long-term aspiration as he states:

We must look not only within Britain for new ideas, but to our neighbours in Europe. And that means keeping an open mind about whether Britain would be better off in the long run as a member of the single currency...We have to be open to ideas that might help, including a move into the eurozone. I am not suggesting we could or should join the euro today. It is neither possible nor desirable in the teeth of an escalating crisis...

And then there is public perception. I have no illusion regarding how unpopular the euro is. The euro should never be introduced in Britain without public consent confirmed in a referendum. But its unpopularity is heavily based on a perception of its inferiority. It was easy to dismiss the fledgling euro as a "toilet currency" before we realised our own economic growth was built on sand. Of course, the euro is no panacea to all our problems. The eurozone will be hit hard by this crisis too, and some of the smaller, weaker eurozone countries are especially vulnerable.

But given the gravity of the economic crisis in Britain, and our unique exposure to international financial markets, silence about the euro must end. The future has never been more uncertain. People are increasingly desperate for stability in our economic affairs. We must be ready to think anew.

2. Liberal Democrats are pro-diversity: the Conservatives are increasingly unrepresentative of modern Britain with their nearly lily-white leadership. They have only one black MP. Unlike Labour and the Conservatives, Lib Dems are not prone to making racially-charged slogans.

3. Liberal Democrats abhor Anglo-Saxonomics: before last Thursday's debate, Nick Clegg was always the question mark while Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable was the well-respected and established face of the Liberal Democrats. At the height of New Labour's American-style financial folly, Vince Cable questioned then-Chancellor Gordon Brown's highly leveraged claim to success. His book, The Storm, lays things bare:

It was November 2003 and Gordon Brown was in his pomp. Alone among the major developed nations, Britain had sailed on through the global downturn that followed the collapse of the late 1990s dotcom bubble. The chancellor liked to boast of the strength of the public finances and of how he had abolished boom and bust. He was certainly in no mood to take any lip from Vince Cable, the Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, when he had the temerity to suggest in parliament that the only reason Britain appeared to be doing so well was that consumers were taking advantage of rising house prices to borrow as if there were no tomorrow.

The response from Brown was an object lesson in complacency and hubris: "The honourable gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, that spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the British economy."

There are 17 days (cue Prince and the Revolution) now left. I am positively giddy as it's as if I've entered an alternate universe with the political equivalent of Aston Villa fighting for the premiership alongside megamoney teams. Go figure; maybe this really is the storm that Vince Cable wrote about that can bring the Lib Dems at least into a coalition government as it is increasingly unlikely for a majority to emerge. Labour leadership is already paving the way for one. How I love to be proven wrong! A hung parliament would certainly be worth it if Cable can become chancellor in a coalition government. At any rate, a new folk hero is emerging as Clegg is approaching Winston Churchill-like popularity. Even Howard Dean is claiming partial credit for this turn of events.

Sometimes, the nice guys don't finish last. Euroscepticism, Atlanticism, and xenophobia are the products of fear and ignorance. Let the Liberal Democrats show us another way.