Today is formally my last day as an MEP.

I have enjoyed (almost) every minute of it, including the discussions and debates with those whose views are radically different from mine, be they from other political parties or from the Eurosceptic brigade (who at least show some interest in European matters, unlike the apathetic multitude).

It has been a privelege to represent Yorkshire & Humber in the European Parliament and to do my best to ensure democratic scrutiny of those matters that we choose to decide jointly with our neighboring countries.

One advantage of a political death - as opposed to the real thing - is that one gets to read one's own obituaries and other comments. As one would expect of someone involved in political life, they are mixed.

I was surprised and delighted when the BBC website carried the following comment from their European editor, Mark Mardell:

"The saddest moment of the night: Labour MEP Richard Corbett lost his seat. Irrespective of party politics, there are some people who are good for politics as a whole. Mr Corbett, a decent, thoughtful politician, is also one of the few people who understand how the European Parliament actually works and explained it well. He'll be missed on all sides of the chamber.

Mark had previously referred to me as:

"an example of a conscientious and hard working politician if ever there was one"

which was very kind.

Meanwhile, The Economist's Charlemagne column/blog said:

"Mr Corbett and I hardly share identical views on the European Parliament, the EU, or the Lisbon treaty. But, like many journalists, I always enjoyed talking to him, because he was extremely knowlegable, decent and fair, and a shrewd observer of Britain's strange relationship with Europe"

The previous Chairman of the House of Lords European scrutiny committee (not from my party) said:

"I was physically sickened on learning of your defeat. The blows to you personally, to the EP and to the EU as a whole are hard to measure. You have been a rock of good sense, huge wisdom and unflagging dedication"

and I could go on, with quotes from across across the political spectrum and across Europe.

But not everyone had a positive view. The Eurosceptic "British Democracy Forum", for example, contained a few gems:

"Richard Corbett embodies all that is evil in this world. The man should be dispatched from this planet without delay. Simply voting him out of office is not enough .... he should be executed.."

and

"What a truly glorious moment that such a contemptible figure as Richard Corbett was voted out"

and

"This is the one result I wanted. Richard 'Lord Haw Haw' Corbett is the lowest of beasts"

Again, I could go on.

But it is in particular the thousands of individuals with no axe to grind who have written, phoned or emailed, whose views I particularly cherish and I would like to thank them all for their overwhelmingly generous comments.

No justice for Leeds Utd but progress from UEFA on matchfixing

Despite losing my seat in the European elections, I have followed up the petition that over 12,000 people signed and tried to press UEFA as far as I could.

First, I had the following written response from UEFA:

“We have received your letter and the petition regarding the 1973 Cup Winners Cup Final between Leeds United and AC Milan. This is obviously a subject that is of enormous importance to many people, and we acknowledge and thank each person who took the time to sign this petition. We of course understand the frustration involved, but our room for manoeuvre is constrained by UEFA's Disciplinary Regulations (Article 7), which clearly dictate the statute of limitations. In the case of a game that took place more than 35 years ago, we have long passed the legal time frame in which any action could have been taken.

The fight against match-fixing is a high priority for UEFA and we can only look to the future to put a stop to it. From our perspective, if the results are fixed in advance then football has no further reason to exist. Because of this we are implementing, with all 53 national associations of UEFA, a new system that will monitor some 30,000 matches as from next season - and we are determined to root out the problem.”

Then, I followed this up by travelling to Geneva to meet a number of UEFA officials at their headquarters. I must say that their response was actually sympathetic, and were very impressed by the number of signatures, but they feel constrained by the legal situation. I understand that a few years ago, they took action against Anderlecht when it was discovered, over ten years after the event, that they had bribed a referee in a European match (against Nottingham Forest). However, Anderlecht went to the courts and won against UEFA when the court ruled that the events had taken place too far back (and beyond their statute of limitations of, at that time, 10 years, which they had raised to 20 years, but the court ruled that they cannot raise it and then discipline a club after the original deadline had expired). The same would certainly happen again if they tried to re-open an event of more than 36 years ago. Even most criminal offences have a much shorter cut-off period. I got the impression that they would not be averse to taking on AC Milan (who, let us not forget, have a record of misdemeanours), but that they genuinely feel that their previous court defeat prevents them from doing so.

UEFA did explain to me at great length the measures they are now taking to try to prevent match-fixing (be it through referees or players) happening again. This includes, among other things, monitoring betting patterns, working with the police to infiltrate gangs, bringing in more severe penalties for those who get caught, trying (with difficulty) to regulate players agents, and so on.

Small consolation for those of us who believe the 1973 result should be reversed, but at least they are making serious efforts to stop such things happening again.

Political balances in the new Parliament

As the dust begins to settle, what is the wider impact of the European election result on the European Parliament?

The most commented on aspect is the setback for the Socialists and the strengthening of the centre-right EPP - though the latter effect is negated by the loss of the British Conservatives, who hope to form their own, separate Group.

Yet the EPP cannot easily build a right-wing majority in the Parliament. The parties to its right are fragmented and are mostly people with whom they would not wish to be associated.

The fascist right, despite gaining the two BNP seats in Britain, lost seats in France and Belgium, gained some in Hungary and Romania, but overall cannot form a political group (a key to influence in the European Parliament), which requires at least 25 MEPs from a quarter (7) of the Member States, unless the Northern League of Italy joins them, which I hear is unlikely. Even if then, it is likely that their strongest common feature - hatred of foreigners - will make it difficult for them to work together for very long.

The eurosceptic right did not fare well in the elections. UKIP's "Independence & Democracy" Group failed to win enough seats to constitute a Group, having lost ALL its seats in Poland, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Even in Britain, despite the gift of the Westminster expenses scandal, it gained only a single seat. As to Libertas, it failed dismally, with even Declan Ganley's millions failing to win him a seat.

The Conservatives are desparately trying to build their own group - but finding it difficult to do so without taking on board some frankly embarrassing partners. Their flight to the fringes is still viewed as madness by most Conservative MEPs - see for instance Caroline Jackson's comments to the BBC yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096297.stm). It is unlikely that the EPP will see them as a partner, given that they have just walked out on their former colleagues, slamming the door.

Finally, the UEN (Union for a Europe of Nations) Group could well disappear. Its mainstays, Fianna Fail is set to join the Liberals and the former Italian AN has been absorbed into the EPP member in Italy. Their main leftover, the Polish PiS, is one of the Tories potential new partners - though their overt homophobia might yet prove too embarrassing for the latter.

All in all, those to the right of the EPP have enough numerically to constitute one or even two political Groups (given that the European Parliament has a lower threshold than most national parliaments for constituting Groups), but actually doing so requires the creation of alliances that are highly problematic - and even if they are successful, they will not be natural allies for the EPP.

Instead, the EPP will have to deal with parties of the centre and the centre-left. Even with the Liberals, they cannot obtain a majority. They will have to bargain with the Socialists and/or the Greens. The left cannot by itself get its way in this parliament, but nor can it be easily circumvented.

election result

Thanks to all those who have been calling or emailing with sympathy for my losing my seat in the European election count yesterday. Losing is one thing - ceding a seat to the BNP is another.


Local elections and European elections always see a proportion of the electorate voting on national issues. This time, there was next to no European content - just one issue in the press and on the doorstep, that of the Westminster MPs expenses scandal.

Of course we knew that all the main parties would be hurt by the scandal, and Labour perhaps more than others as it is in government. People are rightly indignant about it and the main parties must be vigourous in dealing with their rotten apples if we are to restore trust in the democratic system.

What we did not expect was the additional hit to Labour's vote caused by Hazel Blears, choosing the day before polling to have her tantrum and resign dramatically from the cabinet, ensuring blanket media coverage of a Labour split just as people were preparing to vote. At least others waited until the close of poll. Hazel's actions treated with contempt not just her colleague Labour MEPs, but also kicked in the teeth the thousands of volunteers out campaigning to get the best possible result for Labour in already difficult circumstances. Given the closeness of the result in Yorkshire, it certainly gifted the BNP one of their two seats.

Silver linings? There was no surge to the BNP, which got fewer votes than last time (it was Labour's fall that helped them get past their target of more than half Labour's score in Yorks & Humber). UKIP's vote rose by a mere 0.3 percent - they would have lost most of their seats had it not been for the Westminster MPs expenses scandal. The Tories, looking to the next general election, are far from the sort of figure they would be wanting (their 28 percent is well below the 44 percent Labour were getting in the last European elections befor the 1997 general election).

In any case, we must now fight back. It will need lots of hard work, at all levels, but it can be done.

Press is guilty for failing to address real debate on Europe

With amazing chutzpah, the Times leader today complains of “the almost complete absence of any serious debate about European issues is a colossal indictment of the European Union”. Surely it is an indictment of the UK press, including the Times, that there is so little coverage of the European issues at stake in this election!

Only yesterday Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Glenis Willmott, the leader of the Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, gave a joint press conference on the European election campaign and the European issues involved. Every question asked by journalists (bar one) was about Westminster expenses and possible cabinet reshuffles. Not a single newspaper seems to have written up the press conference at all, nor covered the issues raised. And then they have the gall to blame the EU for their failure.

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, arch eurosceptic Dan Hannan MEP displays just as much chutzpah. Not to be outdone by UKIP claims that 75% of our legislation is adopted at European level, Dan comes up with the figure of 84%! No doubt Roger Helmer will soon pop up soon to say that it’s 100%. May I remind readers yet again that the politically neutral House of Commons library says 9%.

But his cheek is also apparent in his claim that “David Cameron plans to give the European Parliament something it hasn’t had for 50 years: an official opposition”. This has all of Dan’s usual hallmarks: a nice sounding turn of phrase that catches the eye, but on closer inspection is totally meaningless.

Unlike most parliaments, where the executive has an inbuilt majority whipped into automatically supporting the government, the European Parliament is not in hock to any executive. The Commission cannot rely on any parliamentary majority to get its proposals through – they are invariably amended, often quite substantially (unlike government bills in most national parliaments) and often rejected. Nor can the Council of Ministers rely on automatic backing from the European Parliament as most MEPs come from parties that, in their own countries, are in opposition to their national government and therefore the ministers in the Council. That is why MEPs are not just lobby fodder – they actually determine the shape of the legislation before them.

Could Dan Hannan have meant it in a different sense, namely that this would be opposition to the EU as such? However, in that sense, it is rather like the SNP claiming that it is the only opposition in the House of Commons because it is the only party that wants to see the break-up of the UK. Dan does oppose the very existence of the EU (and NATO), but that is nothing new in the European Parliament: the extreme right and extreme left have always opposed the EU. So, far from “creating an opposition” to the EU, the Conservatives are merely joining an existing opposition, that majority of whose members are fascist or communist.

Westminster scandal leaves fringe parties to spread Euromyths unanswered

As the campaign for the European elections draws to a close it is apparent that the three main parties have been embroiled in the appalling Westminster expenses scandal leaving the field open to the minor parties who see this as their great opportunity to make headway. Not only have they benefitted directly from the expenses scandal but they have also found that no major party is focused enough on the European campaign ro effectively rebut the myths and lies they continuously spread about Europe.

Thus we have heard in recent weeks, without any effective rebuttal, that:

*70 to 80 percent of our legislation comes from the European Union, when according to the House of Commons library it's only nine percent

*MEPs are on an even bigger gravy train than MPs in Westminster, when in fact they are well ahead of Westminster in cleaning up their act

*That Britain pays £41 million a day into the EU budget, when our net contribution is a third of that and this figure anyway takes no account of the wider economic benefits which dwarf any such figures.

*That EU rules are "dictated by bureaucrats", when in fact bureaucrats only propose rules and it is elected and accountable MEPs and ministers that make the decisions.

Yet few people in the media are informed enough to counter these wild claims and Labour, Liberal and pro-European Conservatives have their minds elsewhere. It is to be hoped that, despite this, the UKIP-BNP axis does not gain seats in the European elections.

Expenses, fringe parties and the Euro elections

For three weeks, the news has been dominated by the MP expenses debacle. This sombre chapter in UK political life seems likely to continue for some time. Analysis of its implications and how our political systems should be reformed is now starting to emerge.

As a result, the elections to the European Parliament on 4th June risk becoming an ‘anti-election’ – a rejection of all political parties. Some, like Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative minister, seem to relish this, urging voters to use their European vote to express their disgust at the mainstream political parties. So MEPs look set to become the collateral damage of this sorry national affair.

There is, to say the least, some irony in this. For many years, the only stories written about MEPs and the Parliament itself were the vitriolic and frequently inaccurate accounts of the “gravy train”.

These stories successfully obscured the fact that Parliament had become a serious player in EU lawmaking, voting through the pan-European laws that have, to name a few examples, set various targets for the fight against climate change, developed a Europe-wide energy policy, and created a framework for the use of chemicals that ensures health and safety across Europe.

But behind the scenes and unreported, Labour MEPs decided, as early as 2000, to set an example in how they handled their finances. We took the decision to introduce their own measures to ensure that their expenditure was beyond reproach, by deciding to voluntarily send every item of expenditure from both their office and staff accounts to an independent qualilfied accountant for review.

Furthermore, Labour MEPs elected in the new Parliament on June 4th are committed to publishing a breakdown of expenditure, with receipts, from their European Parliament office allowances every six months on the European Parliamentary Labour Party’s website as well as on their own sites.

No other party in the European Parliament made these reforms so early and so comprehensively.

By contrast, eight years after the Labour MEPs introduced their own measures in addition to those of the European Parliament, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs resigned and the Chief Whip was forced to resign after they were found to have been abusing and misusing their allowances for years, leading to them being required by the EP to pay back sizeable sums.

Most notably, the flash in the pan success of UKIP in the last European election was quickly marred by the behavious of its MEPs. One UKIP MEP Ashley Mote was found guilty of housing benefit fraud in the UK and was sent to prison for nine months, while fellow UKIP Member Tom Wise has recently been charged with counts of money laundering and false accounting following an account by the EU fraud office. Yet, UKIP Members still have no reporting or auditing of their expenditure.

Lord Tebbit could be forgiven for not knowing the details of Mr Mote’s conviction or of Tom Wise’s alleged financial mismanagement. But his exhortation to the electorate to boycott the mainstream parties is careless and unforgiveable. Perhaps it doesn’t really matter to Lord Tebbit if Conservative voters choose more extreme right-wing options such as the BNP.

In the end, efforts to marginalise the UK’s role in Europe are politically irreponsible. However indifferent many may feel, the European Parliament will make decisions over the next five years that will affect us all. No-one should opt-out and allow these decisions to be made by extremists.

The reality is that we live in a global society with opportunities and challenges unrecognisable from those we faced a generation ago. Responding to these needs progressive policies at local, national and European level. To undermine or opt-out of any of these levels is to undermine our British interests.

Europe is not about back room deals and treaty changes, it is about how we work together the improve the lives of our citizens. It is about working together, where possible, to pull out of this recession; it is about making the air we breath cleaner; securing our borders and preventing global warming. To think that any of these major issues can be tackled solely at national level is, at the very least, misguided and naïve.

Eurovision at St Oswald's in Guiseley

I had a very entertaining afternoon away from the hurly burly of campaigning last Friday when I judged a Eurovision song contest at St Oswald’s junior school in Guiseley.

The children were split into eight teams representing different countries and all performed superbly. The Swedish team’s singing was magnificent, Greece’s perfomance gave everyone a surprise while Portugal’s modern effort was also a hit. There was also the very poetic Irish entry while Italy’s was accompanied by some superb music, nessun dorma.

Unlike the real Eurovision song contest, there was no tatcical voting so hopefully we produced a fair result! Germany claimed third with a brilliant team effort while Spain’s energetic performance won them second which left Albania to take first place. Their fantastic dancing is what clinched it for me.

It was a wondeful afternoon and all the children, teachers and parents at St Oswald’s should be very proud!

The truth about EU regulation

An argument I’ve always taken on with eurosceptics is the effects on business of EU regulation. Open Europe took umbrage at an article I wrote in the Yorkshire Post a few weeks ago, which questioned their wild assertions that EU regulation was out of control and crushing British business, in particular their claim that EU regulations will cost the UK £356 billion by 2018, the equivalent of £14,300 per household.

However, new analysis by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) indicates that EU regulation actually accounts for a tiny proportion of regulatory costs on business (0.1% in 2007-8). Indeed, according to the BCC, who should know a thing or two about how regulation affects businesses, the net cost to business of EU regulation was only £1.9bn, i.e. about £31 per person.

The BCC research also indicates that the ‘better regulation’ drive by both the European Commission and Government have, although derided by the Tories, had an effect. Having analysed 246 impact assessments on regulation affecting business in 2007-8, the BCC research states that the Government managed to cut more than £1bn in administrative costs on business.

Even hese figures, of course, don’t factor in the massive benefits to business and consumers of the European single market, estimated by the European Commission to be as much as 2% of national GDP.

The point is that, to misquote Stephen Fry’s General Melchett in TV’s BlackAdder, regulation isn’t a dirty word. Firstly, having one single set of common rules, instead of 27 different sets of national regulation, can actually cut red tape for business. Moreover, a sizeable proportion of EU regulation on matters ranging from water quality to vehicle licensing would exist at national level if the EU did not exist. The other point is that some regulation saves lives (such as banning the use of asbestos in buildings) or, in the case of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, provides extra rights and social protection for workers,

As legislators, we don’t always get it right, and there are many ways in which the European Parliament, Government and our national parliament could improve the scrutiny and development of European law – from the initial Commission proposal to the final legislation. But research by such an authoritative business voice as the BCC (which, incidentally, also shows that EU regulation accounts for about 20% of regulation on British business, a far cry from David Cameron’s comment that “almost half of all regulations imposed on our businesses come from Brussels”) should certainly knock eurosceptic scare stories on the head.

Nonetheless, it would great to think that, faced with the evidence, the Tories, Open Europe, and Taxpayers’ Alliance will now admit that they were talking nonsense. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath, though.

Gloomy weather on the campaign trail

I usually enjoy being out campaigning, putting arguments to people, entering into discussions, countering euromyths and arguing my case. This time, however, the mood is somewhat dampened by the weather: soaked in Sheffield, drenched in Dewsbury and even hailstones in Hull!

Of course, there is also another matter that has put a dampener on the elections – the question of the expenses of our Westminster colleagues. Public opinion has been rightly outraged by some of the revelations.

Clearly, the House of Commons system of allowing members to meet the cost of running a second home by claiming seemingly any household expenditure – without a tight definition of what qualifies – needs radical reform. Clearly, the judgement of many MPs in making claims within this system has to be questioned. It is also clear that those – from all parties – who have broken the rules or made inappropriate claims must be dealt with visibly and severely - as the Labour party has by immediately suspending certain MPs.

The system must be corrected and higher standards applied if public confidence in our elected representatives is to be restored. No doubt there are also rotten apples in the European Parliament too – and let us not forget that Ashley Mote, elected as one of the 12 UKIP MEPs at the last elections, actually went to jail for fraud during his term of office while another, Tom Wise, is currently facing prosecution. Last year, the Tories lost both their leader and Chief Whip in the European Parliament following allegations of financial misconduct.

But when all is said and done, when all the parties have cleaned their stables – as they must – there are still stark differences between them in what they stand for, in what they would do in government, or what they would do with their seats in the European Parliament. It is to be hoped that people will not lose sight of what elections are about: choice between competing policy options for the future – and not focus exclusively on the rotten apples, as long as the latter are being dealt with and if the system is being reformed.

Above all, a rush towards minor parties without duly checking what they stand for could subsequently be a cause for regret among many voters. Voting for the BNP is not voting for a squeaky clean, moderate alternative – it is voting for a Nazi party, which is no better demonstrated by their top candidate in Yorkshire, whose history of involvement in the extreme right and with neo-Nazis is clear for all to see. Voting for UKIP is voting for a party that is almost as extreme and would seek to tear Britain apart from its neighbouring countries and main export market (not to mention the MEPs elected for UKIP who have actually been jailed for fraud and charged with fiddling expenses). The Greens offer an apparently serious alternative, but their constant attempts to outdo every other party in terms of alleged “greenness” has often led to espousing some pretty untenable positions and, anyway, in most regions they do not have a chance of winning a seat. Certainly in Yorkshire & Humber, voting for them is a wasted vote in the battle to exclude the BNP.

I am finding on the doorsteps that once you get beyond the rightful indignation about some of the shenanigans in Westminster and come back to policy choices, the response to Labour’s message in the European elections becomes more positive. Not enthusiastic in all cases, but nonetheless, a recognition that it is clearly better than the alternatives.