Are the Tories about to tell us that "separatism" is OK after all - but only in Belgium?

Try not to guffaw too loudly, but it looks like David Cameron could be faced with an extremely painful dilemma over the coming weeks.  You might remember that a key part of his pitch to win the Tory leadership in the first place was that the party would leave the European Parliament grouping dominated by the supposedly "federalist" European People's Party, and instead set up a new Eurosceptic group that the likes of Bill Cash could just about live with.  It wasn't exactly easy to do it, because in order to reach the thresholds for official recognition as a group, they had to align themselves with some borderline nutters.  They got there in the end, though, and the "European Conservatives and Reformists" are currently the joint fourth largest group in the parliament, with MEPs from eleven of the twenty-eight member states.

But not, if the polls are anything to go by, for much longer.  The ECR group seems to be about to fall below one of the two thresholds for official recognition, which is representation in at least seven member states.  That doesn't mean the group will necessarily fold after next week's election, but it does mean that they will need to draft in at least one extra party.  This is where it gets interesting, because the general consensus seems to be that one of the obvious candidates is the New Flemish Alliance.  In many ways, they're an absolutely dream fit for Mr Cameron - they're centre-right rather than hard-right, they seemingly have no overtly racist or homophobic baggage, and they even bill themselves as "liberal conservatives" (ring any bells?).

Just one snag, though - they also happen to be what is known in Tory jargon as "separatists".  Here is how Wikipedia describes them...

"It is a regionalist and separatist movement that self-identifies with the promotion of civic nationalism. It is part of the Flemish Movement, and strives for the peaceful and gradual secession of Flanders from Belgium."

They are, in a nutshell, a rough Flemish equivalent of the SNP. They are even currently part of the same political family as the SNP, namely the European Free Alliance (EFA). They're seemingly planning to leave that grouping and seek a new home, not because they have renounced their "separatism", but because of left/right ideological differences, and because the EFA are in alliance with the Greens, which causes embarrassment at home.

But how can David Cameron possibly enter into a political marriage with "separatists" just months before the Scottish independence referendum? You might think he wouldn't be so foolish, but bear in mind that the alternatives could look even worse from his point of view. Getting over the threshold without the New Flemish Alliance might involve dealing with some extremely unsavoury characters, with all the bad press and "nasty party" connotations that come with that. A "prodigal son" return to the European People's Party group would be portrayed as a betrayal and is surely unthinkable. And it's highly unlikely that a major party like the Conservatives would consider not being part of any group at all, because that would freeze it out of much of the parliament's workings. So it could well be that Cameron feels his least worst option is to embrace his inner separatist.

Be sure to have some popcorn handy.

* * *

Meanwhile, it's perfectly conceivable that the SNP will overtake the Liberal Democrats next week as the fourth largest party in the UK contingent at the European Parliament. Both parties are currently forecast to win either two or three seats - but the difference is that the SNP have two definite seats in the bank, whereas the Liberal Democrats are in genuine danger of being completely wiped out.

Such an outcome wouldn't be unprecedented - between 1979 and 1994, every European Parliament seat in Great Britain was held by either Labour or the Conservatives, with the sole exception of the Highlands and Islands seat held by the SNP's Winnie Ewing. In the last first-past-the-post election in 1994, the Liberal Democrats finally made a breakthrough, but still only won two seats across the whole of Great Britain - exactly the same number as the SNP.

'Yeah, they had that AV in Mongolia, that's how the giraffes went extinct'

I caught up with the Daily Politics AV debate on the BBC iplayer earlier, and I think I may have just discovered why the No campaign's star turn John Prescott was never made Foreign Secretary.  We were treated to an impressively confident recital of assorted 'facts' about the electoral systems of foreign countries, most of which Prezza seemed to have gleaned from a conversation with his mate Dave down the pub.  For your delectation...

1.  The German Greens dumped their Social Democrat coalition partners midway through a parliament, and put in the Christian Democrats instead.

(The German Greens have never done any such thing, and at federal level have only ever been in coalition with the Social Democrats.  Prescott is thinking of something the liberal FDP did in 1982.  This, is any case, has no relevance whatever to AV, given that Germany uses a proportional and non-preferential voting system that bears no resemblance to the preferential and non-proportional system we're currently being offered.)

2.  AV has led to the current coalition government in Australia.

(Australia doesn't have a coalition government at present, for the very good reason that the only independent third party with representation in the lower house of parliament holds just one seat.  What there is instead is a minority government, the first of its kind under Australia's AV system for several decades, and one that occurred simply as the result of an unusually close election.  In case Prescott hasn't noticed, something remarkably similar happened in Britain under his own beloved voting system just last year.)

3.  AV in Australia meant that the right-wing Liberal-National coalition was always in power until last year's election, and even then Labor was only able to assume office with the help of the Greens and "a couple of farmers".

(Prescott seems to have slept through the previous Labor administrations led by well-known Prime Ministers such as Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.  He also seems oblivious to the fact that the current Julia Gillard administration were the incumbents going into the last election, and had an outright majority.)

4.  How do we know that AV makes coalitions more likely?  Well, it's only used in three countries, and in Belgium they've been without a government for a year.

(A sentence that would make considerably more sense if only Belgium was actually one of those three countries that uses AV.  The proportional system it instead uses does of course make balanced parliaments and coalitions far more likely, but as that system bears absolutely no resemblance to AV, what in God's name is the relevance in pointing this out?)

But apart from these minor quibbles, I must say I learned a great deal.

My issues with this year's Eurovision contestants - no. 2

Ishtar of Belgium

ORIGINAL FLEMISH LYRICS -
"O julissi na jalini
O julissi na ditini
O bulo diti non slukati
Sestrone dina katsu

O julissi na ti buku
O julissi na katinu
Dvoranu mojani bidna
Marusi naja otcha tu"

Of course, if you're not a fluent Flemish speaker, it may not be immediately clear what my problem with these lyrics is. Indeed, from the way the Belgian audience are whooping in the clip, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're spontaneously responding to some ingeniously inspiring feel-good lyrics. So I've gone to the trouble of providing a full English translation below. It's important to note, however, that in one or two cases a particular word may not be translatable, because it has no meaning as such - ie. it's a nonsense word that does not actually exist in Flemish (or in any other language for that matter). Wherever this is the case, I have simply retained the original word in the text.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION -
"O julissi na jalini
O julissi na ditini
O bulo diti non slukati
Sestrone dina katsu

O julissi na ti buku
O julissi na katinu
Dvoranu mojani bidna
Marusi naja otcha tu"

Are you starting to sense the issue here? The Dutch entry a couple of years ago implored us to realise "there is a way to understand without a language". Whatever that way is, I think we can safely say this isn't it.