As economists and pundits alike predict the collapse of the Euro, you’d be forgiven for thinking the European project was doomed.  But look over to the Western Balkans and you’ll see a completely different story, as another nation-state is due to join the European Union.

In this part of the world, the EU is a driving force for change.  In ten years, the countries of the Former Yugoslavia have completely rebuilt their legal systems, parliamentary practices and political party laws all for the chance to join the largest and richest club in the world.  True, the level of success varies from country to county, but the hard work has paid off for Croatia, who was given the green light in December and is expected to join the EU in July, 2013.

Already we can see the repercussions of that decision: in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina, for fear of being left behind a new state government has been formed after 15 months of stalemate.   Serbia, who has long battled for regional supremacy with Croatia, has handed over the last remaining fugitives to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and is making progress on the Kosovo question.   It is even possible that the SPS, the former party of Milosevic, will apologise for the part they played in the war of the 1990s.  This would have been unthinkable just 12 months ago.

It is easy to forget that 20 years ago this region was engaged in the bloodiest and most horrific war crimes seen in Europe since the Second World War.  It is fitting that the institution set up to prevent another conflict in Western Europe is leading the modernisation of states in the East.

We in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe often take for granted the benefits of membership of the EU and criticise its bureaucratic procedures.   But the real change it has made to the Western Balkans is a welcome reminder of the values of the European project.  Rather than talk of ‘enlargement fatigue’ we should all celebrate the decision to invite Croatia to join the EU and look forward to the day that the rest of the region will follow.

Matthew Beevor is a member of the Young Fabians.

David Cameron returned from the European Summit last week announcing that he had vetoed a new treaty in the ‘national interest’. It would be more accurate to say he was ‘held to ransom’ by the Conservative Party’s friends in the City.

Cameron’s Conservatives are a new breed of Tory. It would be wrong to say that, like the resurgent Wispa bars, they are the same 80’s product in a shiny new wrapper. Nearly 150 Tory MPs are ‘newbies’ who took their seats in 2010. Fewer of them attended private school then in years past- 54% today compared with 70% in 1983. The party is a different shade of blue from Thatcher’s time.

One thing that has not changed is the party’s vested interest in protecting the perceived generators of national wealth. The Smith Institute reports that 27% of the current Conservative crop have a history in financial services. According to Aditya Chakrabortty of The Guardian, the financial sector in this country employs about 1 million people. This means that an industry that employs less than one-thirtieth of the working population is represented by one-quarter of MPs in the dominant governing party.

The Conservatives and the financial sector are entwined in other ways too. A report by GMB reveals that nearly 60% of donations to the Tory party come from individuals and companies linked to finance, hedge funds and other City interests. The Square Mile has often been touted as the beating heart of London. In many ways, it’s the beating heart of the Conservative party too.

In light of such figures, it should come as no surprise that a Conservative Prime Minister should fight tooth and nail in the most prestigious of arenas to protect City interests. Cameron’s so-called ‘veto’ was not a free decision made by a plucky little Englander taking on would-be tyrants overseas, it was the ransom he was forced to pay in return for the continued sponsorship of the financial wizards of the City. On Newsnight, the Minister for Europe effectively conceded this point when he argued that: “There was a real risk that without the safeguards [Cameron] wanted…you would over time have a read across from the closer fiscal integration that the Eurozone countries want to do towards measures that would influence financial services in particular.” The ‘national interest’ was revealed by the bumbling Minister to be code for ‘financial services’.

Is it right that the diplomatic strategy of the British government should be dictated by a closeted club of multi-millionaires detached from the everyday experiences of the vast majority of Britons? Once again the formidable array of interests that profit or benefit from the mysterious operations of finance capital have shifted into gear in spirited defence of the sector. Financial services provide billions in corporation tax. Financial services are one of very few sectors that Britain can boast of being a world leader in. Financial services have a noble heritage reaching back to the dawn of empire, and deserve their vaunted position at the apex of our commercial society.

These are all true statements. What is interesting is that very similar things were said of the coalmining industry in this country thirty years ago, of shipbuilding, and of manufacturing. Other things were true of these industries. They were inefficient, could no longer compete with other nations, and required huge public subsidies just to keep going.

Curiously, the same could be said of the financial sector today. It is no longer efficiently allocating credit to those businesses that need it. It is losing ground to American and European competitors, a process that will only speed up as Britain is left out in the cold while closer fiscal consolidation of the Eurozone takes place. It has required £289 billion of direct financing by the taxpayer since 2008 just to stay afloat, far more that the £193 billion it pumped into the treasury in corporation tax between 2002-2008.

This is the final damning reason why Cameron’s Conservatives are a kind apart from Thatcher’s. Her government identified failing industries, stripped them of their workforce and let them loose to explore the seemingly endless opportunities promised by the ‘knowledge economy.’ Cameron’s government is being held hostage by a failing industry that continues to suck up the resources of the British state and dictate policy terms to a country that no longer sees it as a source of any worth.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

There seems to be two approaches: the rational and the romantic.

Of the large net contributors to the EU budget, the French and Germans seem to fall on the romantic side, they hold a deep routed historical and ideological commitment to the European project following the aftermath of WW2. However the significant CAP and Structural Funds they share between them bend towards the rational. The Italians have the EU to thank for ridding them of the Lira, another rational argument. But what has Britain got to shout about? And will it be rational facts or romantic ideals that will work to make case for EU membership in any potential future vote on the matter?

During our period in government, departments successively made the case for Britain’s EU membership rationally and dispassionately, dealing with hard-headed facts. We spoke about trade, jobs, market access and a single set of market rules all meaning British companies and jobs are better off with Britain in, even if we pay more to the budget than we get back in hand outs (the rebate included). So our position in effect was (and largely still is) this: we pay more in, but without it, we’d be poorer. So in effect, EU membership is an indirect fiscal benefit to the Treasury and thus UK taxpayers.

So far so rational, but it’s not exactly going to send people rushing to the polling station to cast a yes in any prospective future referenda. So what is?

Do we need instead need to break the issue down to the emotive and evocative, using stories and images backed up by hard-headed facts?

The image that Europe, a continent that had been in conflict for centuries, has been at peace for over half a century is strong but it doesn’t seem as relevant today as in the last century.  But twin that with the rational facts of our inter-dependent trade and we might just have a script.

So to tell a story evocatively, as well as dealing in rational facts, Labour should weave a narrative of Britain needing to stand on the world stage with others and not alone, needing to draw on the resources of others to forge a way forward, needing to help those in their greatest need and a Britain that looks outward not inward and to quote a phrase, looking forward not back.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

You can find out more about the 2011 Young Fabian Policy Commissions by clicking here.

Since 1923, all Irish governments have been led either by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, or their precursor parties. The division between the two parties is historical, rather than ideological, representing the anti- and pro-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War. Both parties share a broadly centre-right set of policies. The Irish left is divided, with PES sister party Labour likely to become the junior coalition partner to Fine Gael. Sinn Féin is likely to increase its vote share, while the United Left Alliance could conceivably regain Socialist MEP Joe Higgins’ Dáil seat. The Greens are tainted by their association with Fianna Fáil in the last Government; their electoral fortunes look bleak. Furthermore, the already comparatively high number of independent representatives in the Dáil looks set to increase further as disillusionment with the two main parties kicks in.

But from last summer until quite recently, there was serious discussion of the ending of the ‘two-and-a-half-party’ system in Ireland, as the traditionally third-placed Labour stormed ahead in the polls, with its leader Eamon Gilmore the most popular choice for Taoiseach. For the first time, the Labour Party dared to consider the prospect of a Labour-led Government. Tellingly, this slogan has been quietly retired in recent weeks as the election campaign progresses. But what has caused the sudden rush back towards the more traditional Fine Gael?

I would argue that several factors have contributed to the decline of Labour’s poll rating in recent weeks. Firstly, this election is all about the economy. Labour wants to create jobs and stimulate investment, including renegotiating the country’s debt repayments, and may have fallen foul of the mistrust of left-wing parties on economic issues.

Secondly, it is commonly expected that the traditional voting behaviour where families still support FF or FG would break down as the generations move further away from Civil War divisions. However, Irish citizens abroad are unable to vote. Ballotbox.ie estimates that there are 3.1 million voters in Ireland, with a further 800,000 abroad who are disenfranchised. As young unemployed graduates emigrate, the progressive vote may be going with them.

Thirdly, Labour as a socially progressive party has been subject to dirty-tricks campaigning in recent weeks. Labour is the only party with a pro-choice policy in a country where abortion remains illegal. The Guardian reports negative campaigning against Labour from anti-abortion groups in recent weeks. Labour also supports holding a referendum on extending full marriage rights to gay couples – a divisive issue in often socially-conservative Ireland.

Fine Gael are unlikely to take the 83 seats needed to go it alone in Government today. The electoral mathematics make a coalition with Labour the most likely, but not the only possibility. In a coalition dominated by Fine Gael, Labour will face an uphill struggle in Government.

Christine Quigley is Equalities Officer of the Young Fabians.

Putting aside for a moment, the various international crises that the EU institutions and its member states are engaged in, from the economic crisis, the North African and Middle East crisis and climate change, a perpetual crisis of confidence afflicts this trans-national political structure. And of all the EU member states, Britain seems the most troubled by its membership of the EU.

So this weekend the Fabian Society gathered voices ranging from Shirley Williams to a UKIP MEP to interrogate this continued crisis in confidence of British membership of the EU, debating the question should we be, ‘In, Out or somewhere in between’?.

Sunder Katwala advocates an In/Out Referenda on EU Membership to ‘force the question’ and thus ‘lance the boil’ and bring about a reconciliation of public opinion and the views of the pro European ‘political class’.

But would a yes vote, lance the boil? Would the reluctant British, on a poor turnout with a potential marginal win for the yes campaign suddenly feel a sense of reconciliation with Brussels? I doubt it.  

Historically, it’s worth remembering that Britain has always been a reluctant political European but enthusiastically economic Europeans. It is also worth acknowledging that with the increased politicisation of the EU, the debates in Brussels are less about whether one nation is winning over another, but more about how the European left is struggling to articulate itself.

The political right is in control at European level, in all major institutions, establishing fiscal retrenchment, and rolling back public spending with a knock on to earnings and living standards across Europe. Couple this with the continued liberalisation of labour markets and the centre right’s view of what to use the EU for is certainly in triumph. It’s the European left which is in crisis.

If the European left fails to articulate how to use the EU institutions to achieve our political objectives, then the continued alienation of our voters from EU institutions can be expected.

For voters economic stability and state confidence matters but so too does confidence in the political process and the institutions. What exists in Britain is a crisis of confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve our collective problems and a perception that the EU institutions serve the elites and not the many.

For the left to emerge from the doldrums and to tackle Euro scepticism head on, we need not to be defending the EU for its own sake, but to set out our vision for what we would do with its power under our leadership.

There is undoubtedly a crisis of trust in the EU and in public policy, which afflicts the left harder than the right. The calls for a British referendum on EU membership are symptomatic of distrust in politics and an information deficiency.

So would a referendum on EU membership resolve British tension on EU membership? Will it lance the boil? No. The crisis is much wider than that.

It’s a crisis of confidence in the ability of democratic institutions to solve a crisis in capitalism.  

For the left to renew, we need to set out a credible plan for regaining the confidence and legitimacy of our voters in our ability to set the political institutions at work in serving their needs.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

“a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

The recent edition of Anticipations contains an article from Catherine Stihler, one of the Labour MEPs for Scotland.

Catherine argues that Britain must collaborate with EU states both to forge a stable recovery and to build a sustainable social market economy by 2020. The latter is the EU’s response to the Lisbon Agenda (to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010).

Vital to achieving this goal is the investment in education and skills by domestic governments to equip tomorrow’s work force with the skills for a global economy. This is the very nub of the interaction between the national and the international in policy making. Investment in the skills of its citizens by a national government will allow its workforce to compete for the high skilled jobs of a global marketplace.

Labour has a record of a sustained investment in schools, skills, universities, research and development running hand in hand with a jobs and growth strategy that is beyond Britain’s borders to ensure we look for the jobs of tomorrow.

We should continue this in the next election manifesto as we look beyond our borders for growth, jobs and trade. Labour should continue to make a commitment to young people to allow us to achieve our full potential in the economy of tomorrow. I believe the Backing Young Britain campaign should continue beyond the recession as a positive way of investing in our future to bring high quality jobs to Britain and allow us to compete internationally. Labour can co-ordinate our policies in Westminster and in Brussels to keep European policy working for young Britain and building for our future.

A Labour campaign on foreign policy should argue that the values which define our party should also define our international agenda. Values of internationalism, a global solidarity with those in greatest need, and the need to protect those who are vulnerable and suffering are traditional Labour values which we apply at home and should apply abroad. These are the cornerstone of our movement. They define our approach to all policy areas and separate us from our opponents.

We should focus on three key aspects in Labour foreign policy campaigns. Firstly, we should continue to use foreign policy as a vehicle for economic growth within our nation and beyond our borders. Secondly, we should commit to drawing up a new doctrine for intervention and, thirdly, we should not being afraid of leading in Europe and in other international institutions.

To take the first strand, Britain is a trading nation and needs access to the wider European market. As we move from recession to recovery our agenda for growth will require continued access to the global market to secure jobs and prosperity at home.

In the second instance, there is a need to reassess how and when interventionism occurs, and place it in a consistent framework. This should be founded on a clear relationship between morality and the rule of law. Interventionism cannot be founded upon hubris, neocolonial ambition or economic aspiration. The burden of intervention must also be carried by those who can share it, using international action for military and humanitarian causes.

And lastly, a key component of Labour’s international policy has been to recognise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and should be used to strengthen Britain’s role in the world. However, there is a need to settle the economic argument that EU membership costs Britain more than we get in return. We must also defeat the political argument that pooling our strength leaves us weaker rather than stronger. In this international context Labour should continue to argue for reform of our global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank in order to secure a stronger system for global economics and build a more equal world.

British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today’s Tories are obsessed by ‘process Europe’ and rarely by ‘policy Europe.’ We understand that Britain is strongest at the heart of Europe.

Labour has shown strong influence on the international stage. Those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth, and promote a positive agenda for the developing world know that Labour has delivered and will continue to do so.

The Tories meanwhile are isolated, alienated and on the wrong side of the argument. Hague’s liberal Conservative approach would result in a disastrous marriage of isolationism and inaction, a policy that leaves Britain vulnerable and alone, and the world a less fair place.

Labour recognises that the world has changed since the fall of the empires. It is Labour that understands that to achieve for one nation you have to work with others. Labour’s foreign policy is an agenda for a better Britain and a fairer world and that’s a cause well worth fighting for.

This is an abridged version of the international policy chapter from the Young Fabian report ‘Fast forward: The next generation of progressive politics’

Brian Duggan and Marie Loewe are, respectively, international officer and equalities officer of the Young Fabians

Being vague in their terms of reference, the positions of President of the Council, Chief Executive of the European Council, and High Representative for Foreign Affairs will ultimately be moulded by their first holders, and so it is vital that the right people get the jobs.

Regretfully it seems the leaders have changed the question they were supposed to answer, and so the toil and political capital expended in birthing the Lisbon Treaty looks like it will have been in vain.

The whole point of the Lisbon process was to streamline the EU and, most importantly, to give it a ‘face’ that would be recognisable across the world and would not change every six months. The President in particular would be able to look the leaders of China, India, the USA and Russia in the eye and speak with the authority of the most important market in the world, on human rights, on climate change, on the important issues that will face our societies. The EU would finally be able to punch its weight.

Instead, it is now expected that tonight the 27 will torpedo their own collective global influence and select Herman Von Rompuy (Rumpy-Pumpy to the sketchwriters) of Belgium as the first President.

As a testament to mediocrity, Von Rompuy is a class act. With no record to criticise, he will be the winner of the ultimate race to the bottom – the lowest common denominator candidate. Instead of a President with the stature that couldn’t be ignored, the position of President will be effectively neutered at birth.

For anyone who cares about the position of the UK and the EU in the world, it will be a travesty if the 27 choose this path. The EU needs to select a strong figure as President if it is not to slip into potentially terminal and irreversible decline.