Rolling these two together makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, I’m secretly lazy, and in any case I’m running out of time before the election. And second, these areas are by far the most subjective, and thus don’t entirely benefit from an evidence-based approach.

Foreign Policy and Europe

I noticed the above on Strange Maps this morning, from the Economist. You can click through for a more thorough discussion. The bit worth highlighting here is the magazine’s take on where the UK fits within Europe: in the south, with the PIGS, contemplating its denuded public finances.

That’s one view. Predictably enough, I have three more views here, one for each political party. Whodathunk.

First, it’s worth noting that of the three, the Lib Dems are the only ones to have promised a manifesto on Britain’s membership of the EU. This is in reality a slightly nasty piece of political theatre. They’re pretty confident that they would win cleanly, and they’re probably right, as the UK has been largely comfortable with EU membership for the last generation. This isn’t to say that the UK is entirely comfortable with the Union in its entirity, however, and an easy majority of Britain’s population would resist a further drift of power away from Westminster; however, by holding and passing a referendum on EU membership, Clegg and his cohort would be able to plausibly claim a mandate for further integration over the heads of Britain’s largely Euroskeptic public. It’s a move that would earn them a deserved savaging in the press, but like it or not, the Lib Dems aren’t the blushing political neophytes that they like to claim to be.

Broadly speaking, though, the characatures of the positions of the three parties on Europe are correct. The Lib Dems favour more integration and a more enthusiastic leadership role for the UK in Europe; they are not unaware of the EU’s failings but thinks that Britain could do more ot mitigate those failings if it robustly assumed the role at the top table that it deserves, and that much of Europe is still looking to it to take on. The euroskeptics of the Open Europe thinktank are predictably dismayed, but have some not unreasonable criticisms of Clegg’s position on the Euro. It seems to me that Clegg himself (like his putative Chancellor) is personally ambivalent to the currency; certainly both accept that Britain’s reliance on the Pound has eased the UK’s passage through the economic storms of the last two years. But the party and its faithful remain strongly pro-Euro. This is one kink that won’t be ironed out in a hurry.

Meanwhile, Labour’s transformation into a Europhilic party is complete. It seems hard to believe that, before Blair, Labour was as torn on the question of Europe as the Tories; but now their manifesto is unequivocal:

We are proud that Britain is once again a leading player in Europe. Our belief is that Britain is stronger in the world when the European Union is strong, and that Britain succeeds when it leads in Europe and sets the agenda for change. Sullen resistance and disengagement achieve nothing.

Nevertheless, there is no appetite in the party for the kind of battles that a Lib-Dem-esque europhilic policy would entail. Its manifesto stops well short of calling for Turkish membership to the Union, and entry into the Euro is hardly discussed. Labour are clearly content to occupy a status quo position.

The Tories are what they are: while stopping short of opposing Britain’s EU membership altogether, they want existing powers to be rolled back and future treaties to be put to referendum (i.e. to fail). Their alignment with Europe’s hard-right and Eurosceptic parties is clearly mischievous, and may be actively malign. And so on. That said, there are still plenty of good reasons for Euroscepticism, even if the Tories are as bad at articulating them as the Liberals are at defending their pro-Europe positions.

On Europe, then, the question is very much one of personal choice.

The rest of the foreign policy gauntlet is somewhat dependent upon events. Of the leaders, Clegg has by far the most international experience, while the Tories are the most reliably Atlanticism of the three parties. The Lib Dems would be less likely to uphold the doctorine of liberal intervention (which states that a country can invade another pre-emptively to head off a threat or a catastrophic abuse of human rights; used to justify Iraq, as well as Bosnia and Rwanda, amongst others) in countries like Iran or Sudan. The Tories would be less likely to criticise Israel or support Palestine. Beyond that, predictions are a mugs game.