International politics

The mood in Dublin is febrile, despite the gloom of 14 percent unemployment. Everyone has advice for Enda Kenny on how to revive the Celtic Tiger. This morning, 17 prominent businessmen and public figures submitted A Blueprint for Ireland’s Recovery to the Department of the Taoiseach. The Irish Times reports that the authors propose deeper spending cuts and greater efficiency in the public sector. This is a different approach from influential Irish Economist Colm McCarthy, who argued on Sunday that ‘fiscal stringency is not enough to resolve the crisis’ because the banking restructure (contained within the IMF/EU bailout) is ‘impractical'. Enda Kenny, it seems, agrees with McCarthy, which is why he went to Brussels last week to renegotiate the 5.

David Cameron’s statement on Libya today reflected his growing frustration at the pace at which the wheels of diplomacy are moving on this issue. In his statement, Cameron warned that ‘time is of essence’ and that Gaddafi staying in power, something Cameron had previously called ‘unthinkable’, would send a ‘dreadful signal’. Time, really, is of the essence. If we don’t see movement in the next few days, it seems almost inevitable that Gaddafi will crush the revolt. One of the things that Cameron stressed is that Gaddafi continuing in power would be more than a moral and humanitarian disaster.

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I've been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone - knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these things go. From the offset, Cameron was articulating a basic principle: we need to help the Libyan rebels, not sit and watch them get butchered.

In the last two days, Nato and European leaders have declared that Gaddafi must go, but both have baulked at taking unilateral action. Their reticence has sparked a response from those in favour of intervention. Speaking in Brussels today, David Cameron said that situation on the ground may be getting worse and that Europe and the West in general “must be ready to act if the situation requires it”. Liberal interventionist Bill Clinton went further. Speaking at the Women in the World summit, he said: “I wouldn’t do it if they [the rebels] hadn’t asked… [But] it’s not a fair fight. They’re being killed by mercenaries.

The government has been damaged by its response to the Libyan crisis and the SAS incident in particular. William Hague has been branded a 'serial bungler', and the FCO’s response was condemned as slow and ill-prepared. The consensus is that heads should roll at King Charles Street. Many commentators have also argued that the Prime Minister was too quick to call for a no-fly zone over Libya. Nobody, not even government loyalists, could argue that the last few weeks have been David Cameron’s finest.   However, one can be too critical. Let’s start with the SAS mission. Something obviously went wrong, but it is hard to believe that ministers could have done anything differently. Their job is to set direction, not to micromanage operations.

The BBC reports that Enda Kenny’s Fine Gael party has reached agreement with Eamon Gilmore’s Labour party. The new coalition is understood to be determined to renegotiate the precise terms of its EU/IMF bailout. If they succeed (which is far from certain) they will have served two purposes: first, to obtain a better deal for the Irish taxpayer; and second, to give the government a nourishing political victory over ‘the Germans', now loathed by Ireland's boisterous eurosceptic movement.  So, will it be an easy coalition? There is a tendency in Britain to define all politics in terms of left and right; already the BBC is busy with ‘centre-right Fine Gael’ and ‘centre-left Labour’.

The Foreign Office has come in for a lot of criticism lately, following delays in getting Britons out Libya. Some argue that it is all William Hague's fault. Others that the department is unfit for purpose. Both of these views seem a bit unfair. The FCO managed to help Britons in Tunisia and Egypt, and only came up short when the company they had used failed to take off for Libya. True, there should have been a better contract in place – which would give the FCO alternatives – but that hardly translates into systemic failure. True, ministerial divisions between Jeremy Browne, in charge of consular affairs, and Alistair Burt, who runs Middle East policy, did not help. But that's probably inevitable.

I've spent ten minutes reading the same passage and still don't understand what it means. It comes from Harriet Harman, quoted in the Independent, criticising the government's Libya strategy: "The response to the terrible events in Libya has been a shambles. The key to their shambolic response lies in their ideology. If your perspective is that government is a bad thing and you want less of it, you're not going to be on the front foot when the power of government is exactly what is needed." Do you get it? Is the Labour MP saying that her party would have harnessed the power of the state, principally the military, and ordered the bombing of Libya?