online diary of Richard Corbett MEP |
January 2005 |
Saturday 1 JanuaryThe bulk of the latest set of reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy kicks in with the New Year. The key elements, in a nutshell:
With this set of reforms, the CAP of 2005 looks quite different from the CAP of the past. But a lot more still needs to be done to get it completely right. Sunday 2 JanuaryBefore going to Brussels tomorrow, I use "remote access" to look at the Emails that have arrived on my Parliament computer: there are over 500 of them! Monday 3 January.It may be a bank holiday in England, but not in Brussels! The European Parliament anyway has much shorter recesses than Westminster, and resumes work today. Tuesday 4 JanuaryMuch discussion of the tsunami tragedy in the Parliament. The numbers of dead from several EU countries is high enough to normally be considered major catastrophies in their countries, but are dwarfed by the total numbers in Asia. Many are shocked by the willingness of some eurosceptic newspapers to use such a tragedy for political purposes, trying to find ways of criticising Europe's response to the tragedy. Are there no depths to which some will not descend? In fact, the Europe - the EU and its Member States - has given more aid than the USA and the EU's Humanitarian Aid office (ECHO) was the first to respond and mobilised staff the same day as the disaster. Wednesday 5 JanuaryMost of the day is devoted to discussions on my report on the European Constitution. Each political group, including my own, is examining my report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee and deciding whether to table amendments to it in the House when it is debated next week. They are also determining their position on the matter. I am delighted when the Socialist Group approves the report as it stands and decides not to table any amendments to it whatsoever. At midday I join most other MEPs, members of the European Commission and many Ambassadors on Place Schuman, next to the European Commission building in Brussels, to stand in the three minute silence which is being organised right across Europe as a mark of respect to the victims of the tsunami. Later that day I meet the Ambassador for the Windward Islands for a briefing on how trade negotiations on bananas would affect his country and many other countries. He would prefer to keep EU practices as they are, but pressure from the Americans in the WTO could lead to changes that would devastate small Caribbean economies. Thursday 6 JanuaryMy 50th birthday. I am delighted that Tony Blair is coming all the way to Saltaire for a lunch to mark the occasion (or was it for some other reason?) but sadly I am detained on other business in Brussels. I am pleased to hear that only twenty amendments have been tabled to my report on the constitution - a record low number for a report from the Constitutional Committee - with the liberals tabling only one amendment, the Christian Democrats two, and the Socialists none. Friday 7 JanuaryFly back to Leeds on a bumpy flight which aborts its landing at the last minute because of a lateral wind gust. We circle the area (flying over my house in Saltaire) and come in for a second attempt - fortunately successfully. Catch up with all the post-Christmas correspondence in my office. Monday 10 JanuaryFinally get to Strasbourg for the first session this year, but only after horrible journeys with delayed planes (because of the storms) meaning a total of 8 hours spent in the lounge of Leeds-Bradford airport! This is the week with Parliament's debate and vote on my report on the new EU Constitution. I find out that only 20 amendments have been tabled - a record low number for this type of report - which augurs well for a hefty majority. One of the amendments is an alternative resolution signed by Nigel Farage MEP, the UKIP leader in the EP, and tabled on behalf of their group. It would appear that the UK Independence Party has changed its tune! In the resolution, they argue for more qualified majority voting (though curiously with fewer votes for Britain!), for the veto to be restricted to "vital areas" and for more power to the European Parliament.They also endorse the existence of a European Commission (though they would prefer it to be larger, with one member from each country), and approve of the European Parliament having a final say over proposed legislation. This U-turn by UKIP is unexpected, but very welcome. To read this kind of material flowing from the pen of Nigel Farage, who has made a career out of being as extreme an anti-EU campaigner as he can, is a most pleasant surprise. However blinkered they started out, perhaps UKIP's experience of decision-making at the heart of Europe has now begun to open their eyes to reality? Of course, they still have much to learn: some things they call for are already reality or are contained in the new constitution. And they still peddle many myths. But it's a start on what will be a long learning curve. I wonder whether they will now have the integrity to admit the reasons for their change of stance to the British public? More likely they will beat a hasty retreat when the media spots it! In the evening, I have dinner with Dennis McShane, Britain's Minister for Europe, who has come out to Strasbourg for the debate and vote on my report, which he kindly compliments me on. We are joined by Chris McLoughlin, the new editor of Tribune, who describes to us his ambitious plans to re-vamp his publication. Tuesday 11 JanuaryFull day debate on my report on the constitution. The vote will be tomorrow, but from the debate, it is clear that there is a large majority - I predict over two-thirds - in favour of the new constitution. I introduce the debate as follows (the full debate can be found here): "Mr President, the enlargement of the European Union means we are having to upgrade from driving a minibus, capable of taking 15 passengers, to a full-sized bus, capable of taking 25, with some spare seats to take on new passengers in due course. This larger bus needs a stronger motor if we are to cross the difficult hills that lie on our path. If we are to have a stronger motor, we will also need stronger brakes - perhaps an emergency brake - and better safety features, such as a safety belt on each seat. Since we are upgrading, we should also have more comfortable seats so that every passenger feels at home and comfortable in this bus. Also, while we are at it, why not have a geo-satellite positioning system so we always know exactly where we are on the roadmap and can better plan the journeys we want to take together by the most efficient and comfortable route? "That is why we need a new set of rules for the European Union: a new Constitution (bringing) a set of improvements that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and your rapporteurs have identified as falling into four main categories. First, it means greater clarity as to what the Union is, how it works and functions. Under this heading one can identify a single Treaty instead of the several overlapping Treaties - a single, document that spells out more clearly the objectives and the values of the Union and its competences, what it is responsible for and what it is not responsible for, and how it works, with fewer and clearer procedures. This will make it easier for citizens to see and to understand what our Union is about. We will get rid of the distinction between 'Union' and 'Community', which nobody except lawyers understands, creating a single legal entity. It makes it clear that we are not creating some huge monolithic monster - the mythology of the superstate that some people seem to fear. It is clear that we are not creating a centralised Union. "Second, it will provide for a more effective Union - a Union capable of deciding and acting with 25 Member States. It will make for more qualified majority voting and more continuity in the chairmanship of the European Council. There will be a single foreign minister to speak for the Union to the outside world, instead of the Commission speaking on some issues and the High Representative of the Council on others, which meant that third countries never knew whom they had to deal with. Those posts will be merged into a single position. "Third, and most important in my view, it will provide more democracy and accountability in the Union. Under the Constitution, all legislation will be subject first to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments, and then the double control of the Council and the European Parliament at European level, such that both have to approve virtually every item of European legislation. Frankly, this makes the European Union the most democratic international structure, or supranational structure, that exists in the world. Compare the EU to the IMF, to the World Bank, to the WTO or to any other international structure: none of them have or will have this degree of parliamentary input and of parliamentary scrutiny. We should be proud of the democracy that exists at the heart of our Union! "The Constitution will significantly reinforce that democracy by extending codecision, by giving Parliament the right to elect the President of the Commission and by improving parliamentary control over the Commission and the so-called "comitology" system for delegated secondary legislation. "Fourth, the Constitution introduces greater rights for citizens through the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has been incorporated into the Constitution. This, of course, applies only in the field of European Union law, but that is a significant field of competence, and all European legislation henceforth will have to comply with that Charter. "All of this has led us to conclude that the Constitution is, to quote the committee's report, a 'vast improvement'. It is a vast improvement on the current Treaties and on the current constitutional order. It merits our support. These improvements are due in no small part to the input of the European Parliament into the Convention and the IGC. We can be proud of our results. "It is a compromise. It is not a utopian treaty. All of us would have written it slightly differently had we had carte blanche to write it ourselves, but as a compromise package it is a distinct improvement. I am confident that tomorrow Parliament will endorse it by an overwhelming majority. This Parliament, elected by citizens across the whole of Europe, with parties from left to right across the political spectrum, parties in government and parties in opposition, will send a powerful signal if it endorses the Constitution tomorrow by an overwhelming majority. I am confident it will." After myself and my fellow rapporteur Inigo Mendez de Vigo, there are speeches by the President of the Council endorsing the constitution on behalf of all 25 governments, the Vice President of the Commission Margot Wallström, the leaders of each political group and some 114 other MEPs. A wide range of views are heard, but with the majority endorsing the constitution. There are varying levels of enthusiasm, but all supporters agree that it is a vast improvement on the current treaties. A minority, however, oppose the constitution for a variety of reasons: some because they think it doesn't go far enough in an integrative direction, some because they don't like specific changes and some because they oppose the whole idea and indeed the existing EU. Paul Boateng, UK cabinet minister, attends the debate as well, sitting on the Council benches. During the lunch break, I join the President and several journalists and an MEP from every group for a buffet lunch. Later, after the debate, there is a public seminar with these journalists, who include the American writer Rifkin whose recent publication "The European Dream" has caused a stir in America by arguing that, in quality of life terms, Europe has nothing to envy in the "American dream". In the evening, I go downtown to the Mayor of Strasbourg's traditional New Year's reception. I find that the only British MEPs present are myself and Robert Sturdy, who is accompanied by his charming wife. I have a chat with the Mayor, Fabienne Keller, and discover that her daughter has just completed a year studying at the University of Strasbourg (on the ERASMUS exchange programme) and that she herself visited Bradford and came to my home village of Saltaire just a few months ago! Wednesday 12 JanuaryThe Parliament endorses my report by a majority that is even larger than I predicted: 500 votes in favour, 137 against - nearly a three-quarters majority! On paragraph 1, which endorses the constitution, the vote was 514 to 135. As I said in my speech, this is a powerful endorsement from the Parliament that is elected by citizens across the whole of Europe, with parties right across the political spectrum, parties in government and parties in opposition, members from capital cities and from the regions in every Member State. I give a press conference afterwards with the President of Parliament and Inigo Mendez de Vigo. The press room is packed and we take questions for nearly an hour. I then give lots of interviews and later do half hour debates on Irish and French TV channels and shorter pieces on several others. Indeed, I do something (radio, TV or newspaper interviews) for almost every Member State . except Britain! Why is my own country's media so silent? And then they wonder why people are so ill informed about Europe! Thursday 13 JanuaryCatch up with the press coverage. I see the little bits that have got into the UK newspapers about yesterday's debate and vote is largely in pursuit of the Eurosceptic agenda. First there are photos of the anti-constitution banners held up by a few MEPs (mainly far-right and Tories) against the constitution as we voted on it. The result of the vote, when reported in the articles, is dwarfed by these photos, which give the impression of massive opposition to the constitution from MEPs! Some of the MEPs concerned even have the gall to complain that they were not allowed to display their posters longer (imagine if that sort of thing were tried by Eurosceptics in the House of Commons!) and that the President asked them, after a few minutes, to take them down. Then, there is a claim that Parliament is paying me money to make propaganda for the Constitution! This turns out to be based on the fact that the Parliament, when faced with requests from national parliaments to hear the view and analysis of the European Parliament, decided that I and Inigo Mendez de Vigo and the committee chair should present the EP's views when invited, for instance by a national parliamentary committee debating the constitution. The reimbursement of my travel costs counts, according to UKIP (with Godfrey Bloom prominent, as ever, in deliberately distorting the facts) as a subsidy to me! There are also allegations that the European Parliament has spent taxpayer's money on "parties", champagne receptions, etc to celebrate its approval of the EU constitution. Not only are these unfounded, but some politicians (in this case Tory) link this with the tsunami tragedy in the worst kind of hypocritical opportunism. The Eurosceptics don't debate: they are focused entirely on media stunts. They get coverage with methods that are beneath contempt. After reading all this, it is a relief to participate with the President of Parliament in an on-line chat with schools from across Europe. They are keen to learn and bombard us with questions. Friday 14 JanuaryI receive a copy of a press release by Eurosceptic Tory MEP Dan Hannan. He claims that "The constitution will give the EU all the attributes of statehood: legal personality, a Head of State, a Foreign Minister and Diplomatic service, a judicial system, recognised external borders, a military capacity and a police force." Which of these are true and in what way are these attributes of statehood?
His approach reveals much about the Eurosceptics: they hope that by banding innuendo about, some of it will stick in people's minds. They avoid objective analysis but seek to frighten people. Monday 17 JanuaryStart the day by debating the constitution with Jens-Peter Bonde, the Leader of the eurosceptic ID group in the European Parliament (to which UKIP belongs, but Bonde's views are somewhat less extreme than theirs) to an audience consisting of Parliament's interpreters. Bonde and I meet beforehand and toy with the idea of swapping roles: he to defend the constitution and me to attack it, but we think better of it: neither of us would be very good at that. Bonde declares himself against the constitution as it stands. He would like to see changes to it which would include each national Parliament electing the member of the Commission of their nationality. In my view this would turn the Commission into the Council: it is in the Council, where all key EU decisions have to be approved, that member states are represented through a minister of the elected government of that country. The Commission's role is a different one: to administer EU policies once they have been agreed and to put forward proposals for new policies. Commissioners do not formally represent their countries: rather, the Commission belongs to all of us and is neutral as between member states. Under Bonde's system, he would have the Commissioner for Competition Policy responsible to the Dutch Parliament, the Commissioner for Trade to the British Parliament, the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection responsible to the Latvian Parliament, and so on. Curious. I then give a talk to the Parliament staff responsible for receiving and briefing groups of visitors and have a meeting with Andrew Duff, the Liberal Group's spokesman on constitutional affairs, to prepare our visit to the House of Commons next week where we have both been invited to give evidence to the Scrutiny Committee. Afternoon meeting with Lucy Aspinall and Rachel Briggs from the Yorkshire office in Brussels. Evening reception held byParliament Magazine (our equivalent of the WestminsterHouse Magazine and published by the same people) where I bump into Tim Kirkhope, Yorkshire MEP and new Leader of the Conservative MEPs who tells me how much he is opposed to MEPs waving banners and flags on the floor of the House. I am delighted to hear him say this, as it was some of his own members (from the eurosceptic faction in his party) who had joined UKIP and some far right Polish MEPs to wave huge placards when Parliament voted for the constitution in adopting my report last week. Some of them kept waving them even when the Speaker had asked them to take them down. This hooligan element in the European Parliament had managed to get away with things that would never even be contemplated in Westminster and yet they complained loudly to the press afterwards that the order to remove their banners was discriminatory and trying to silence them! It was therefore pleasing to hear Tim Kirkhope disavow his more extreme members and I trust he will crack down on them. Also at the event is the new editor of The Sprout, which was founded as a eurosceptic newsletter, but the new editor tells me that he wants to change it into a Brussels version of Private Eye. It would not take a political stance, and would abandon its eurosceptic rhetoric in order to concentrate on good stories. I must get hold of a few forthcoming copies to see if he manages to live up to this aspiration. Tuesday 18 JanuaryIn the morning I meet a group from Britain who arrive on a big red double-decker bus: 20 members of the WI and WWF, coming to lobby Parliament in support of the Commission's REACH proposals on dangerous chemicals. I'm pleased that Yorkshire constituents have taken the trouble to travel out to Brussels and meet their local MEP. They put a very convincing case for supporting these proposals, and they are now presenting their arguments to a parliamentary committee. Medical evidence suggests that it is now time to double-check several thousand chemicals which we had previously assumed were relatively harmless. Members of the WWF and Women's Institute have themselves been tested and found their blood to be contaminated with a cocktail of toxic, man-made chemicals. So it's high time this testing programme was put into practice. In the afternoon I go off hold a joint press conference on the constitution with my co-rapporteur, Inigo Méndez de Vigo in Madrid. The room is packed and there are 130 journalists, cameramen and so on. We explain why the European Parliament has supported the constitution and we receive support from the Leader of the Conservative Party (oh for such Conservatives in Britain!). Inigo has also written a book on the convention and the drafting of the constitution which is well written and attracts a lot of attention. After the conference, he and I together with Jean-Luc Dehaene (the former Belgium Prime Minister and Vice-President of the convention) and the previous President of Columbia go out for a meal. Dehaene is quite a gourmet, and his wife is publishing a recipe book which we await with interest. Wednesday 19 JanuaryUp at 5am (4am UK time!) to travel back to Brussels in time for a meeting of Constitutional Affairs co-ordinators of all the political groups. Over the lunch break I speak at the launch of the Yes campaign being set up by the International European Movement, the JEF and a large number of NGOs. I then go off for lunch with Tom Spencer, the former leader of the Conservative MEPs. His absence from the Parliament is a major setback for the Tories. I encourage him to set up "Conservatives for the Constitution". Pro-European Conservatives should stay in the Tory party and fight their corner! Afternoon meeting with the Constitutional Affairs committee. Commissioner Margot Wallström comes along for some of the issues. She has just started a blog - I think the first European Commissioner to do so - and I congratulate her on it. Anyone who wishes to see it should click here. In the discussions, the Democratic Unionist MEP Mr Allister objects to any discussion on how the future constitution might be implemented, claiming that this pre-judges national ratification procedures. I point out that it would be strange not to prepare for the implementation of a treaty that every government has signed up to: after all, if countries had waited for the Kyoto protocol to achieve formal ratification before making any preparation for its commitments, there wouldn't have been much point in having the agreement in the first place! There are also instances where the new constitution makes mandatory something that is perfectly possible under the existing treaties. For instance, it requires the Council to meet in public whenever dealing with legislation. Why should that not be implemented already if it is allowable under the existing treaty? Thursday 20 JanuaryMr Allister, this time supported by Ashley Mote, the member UKIP suspended from their group, returns to the attack. This time the object of their ire is a meeting with the House of Commons and Lords EU committees next week. The Commons (and indeed the Lords) want to hear the views of the European Parliament, and not unnaturally it is proposed to send to their hearing members able and willing to defend Parliament's viewpoint (notably the two drafters of Parliament's report, including myself, and the committee chair). The two of them object to this and say that we should include members who had voted against Parliament's position in our delegation. I doubt very much that the Commons is interested in hearing us continue our internal debate in front of them. What they want is a clear exposition of the European Parliament's views - which were, after all, adopted after a democratic debate by a very large majority - and posing questions to us. No doubt some of their members will agree with us and others will disagree with us. But to suggest we send members to represent Parliament who will actually disagree with and attack Parliament's position seems to me to be akin to wanting, say, the Labour government to be represented at international meetings by the Conservative shadow minister! When I explain this in the discussion Mr Allister accused me of being a "fanatic". This was a bit rich coming from a member who has systematically taken the most extreme positions imaginable on the constitution in every one of our discussions on it. Interestingly, in the course of the debate, the Leader of UKIPs group admitted that it is "very easy to propagate misunderstandings on the Constitution". Curiously, Mr Allister asked a question to the Luxembourg European Affairs Minister, who attended our meeting as the Acting Presidency of the Council, as to what the Council is doing to make sure that the referenda in different countries are "free and fair". All EU countries are functioning democracies, so the idea that the EU Council should take it upon itself to tell member states how to run the referendum campaigns is, to put it mildly, curious coming from a eurosceptic! I suggest that the committee send Mr Allister and Mr Hannan on a fact finding mission for us - in a far away country for several months? Friday 21 JanuaryBack to Leeds for a day of catching up with developments in Yorkshire. In the morning I learn of plans by Kirklees Council to upgrade their public toilets to meet new accessibility standards contained in the Disability Discrimination Act. This is a UK law which has its origins in a directive we agreed at EU level some years ago. This is all well and good, except that the council appears to be using the opportunity to quietly close down a number of other public toilets. I speak to a BBC journalist who asks whether the cost of upgrading some conveniences is forcing local councils to shut down others. I point out it's a bit rich for Kirklees Council to complain about the new law taking them by surprise when it's been approaching for ten years, and in any case, why shouldn't disabled people expect the same high standards wherever they travel in the EU? I also meet a few other constituents who are seeking help with individual issues related to Europe. Conversation with one gentleman strays onto the subject of who should be running the country - his intriguing suggestion is that Britain should be run by hairdressers and taxi drivers, as the two groups of people who spend most of their lives listening and chatting with members of the public. As an EU enthusiast, he also proposes founding a new pressure group - 'Hairdressers For Europe' - so I put him in touch with the Britain in Europe campaign. Watch this space. Spend the evening catching up with correspondence and trying to make a dent in my reading pile. Saturday 22 JanuaryI see from press reports that the BBC has received the independent report commissioned by its governors on how it covers European issues. Although initiated in response to allegations made by eurosceptics that it was biased in a pro-European direction (!), the report concludes, according to the Daily Telegraph, that the BBC has been "peddling stereotypes about the European Union and too often telling important EU stories only through the prism of British politics". It also mentions that Radio 4 (no doubt especially Today Programme) has been ignoring European issues and that Radio 5 (Radio 4 won't like this!) and especially the World Service have better coverage of EU issues and are better at explaining the basics. Monday 24 JanuaryThe squabbling, infighting and disintegration of the euro-sceptics continues. Robert Kilroy Silk announces his definite break with UKIP, hinting that he wants to create a new political party rumoured to be called "Veritas" - though it's immediately dubbed "Vanitas" by everybody else! He announces that he wants to avoid "the maverick atmosphere that surrounds leading UKIP figures like Nigel Farage (...) and Godfrey Bloom" (the Sunday Express, page 16). Meanwhile, in the Conservative Party, Robert Oulds, former Director of the "Bruges Group" of Tory anti-Europeans, has just been de-selected as Conservative candidate for Slough at the next General Election after posting on the internet photos of himself posing with a collection of weapons including an AK 47 assault rifle and a shotgun! Tuesday 25 JanuaryA day in London where I am, notably, to be giving evidence to the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee. But first a visit to the new Britain in Europe campaign headquarters on the south bank not far from the GLC. Walking there I am nearly run over by a lorry whose driver then proceeds to swear at me and winds down his window to spit at me. A passer-by is so shocked that she gives me his number plate. I give a press conference under Britain in Europe auspices in the House of Commons with scarcely three journalists in the room - what a contrast with last week's press conference in Madrid with Mendez de Vigo and 130 journalists present! The British press is so obsessed with the Westminster village that they don't think anything political happens at any other level of governance! Participate briefly at a meeting in Chatham House (The Royal Institute for International Affairs) on the new constitution for Europe. We hear an assessment, not least from Sir Stephen Wall, on what can be done about media bias against Europe in Britain. Have lunch with members of the House of Commons and House of Lords EU Scrutiny Committees - I am sat near Bill Cash, a veteran anti-European Conservative. Curiously, UKIP has announced that it will put up a candidate against him in the General Election as he apparently too soft on Europe!! The hearing with the Commons Scrutiny Committee goes well. Besides myself, the Constitutional Affairs Committee Chairman Jo Leinen, the Liberal Democrat spokesman Andrew Duff, Finnish MEP Alexander Stubb and Hungarian MEP, whatsisname, all give evidence (and subject ourselves to cross-examination) on the subject of the European Parliament's assessment of the new constitutional treaty. There are a large number of questions from Bill Cash who dominates proceedings to the extent of seriously annoying his colleagues. He and the other euro-sceptic members of the committee keep on throwing strange stories at us that make us think that they are talking about an entirely different treaty. After the Commons, off to the Lords - but for a very short meeting as we first are invited to join the President of their Committee for tea in the Lords tea room. The Lords give the impression of being much more informed and therefore much more positive about the constitution. I then give a talk to the Yorkshire Group of the PLP on the constitution. The meeting is also addressed by Nan Sloane, our Regional Director, looking forward to the prospects of the next General Election which might of course be held later this year. Wednesday 26 JanuaryBack in Brussels first for a meeting with the President of the Parliament to review Parliament's efforts to provide information to the public on the constitution. We note that there is, in Parliament, a small group of MEPs who will hesitate at nothing to try to discredit Parliament's efforts in this regard. They are among those who held up banners and placards during Parliament's vote on the constitution, then they tried to disrupt the official launch of Parliament's information campaign and then had the gall to complain that they were being unfairly treated. They made unfounded claims in the media that Parliament had spent a £ ¼ million on hosting a champagne party to celebrate the adoption of my report. They claimed that they had been unfairly treated - indeed mishandled - by Parliament's security guards. They have then tried to disrupt and discredit Parliament's delegations to meet national Parliaments, in response to the latter's invitations to hear its assessment of the constitution. This is a new situation for the European Parliament where differences of view in debate have hitherto been firmly but politely expressed and without the minority seeking to undermine the workings of Parliament itself. Nonetheless, there is a determination not to let this group of hooligans win. Parliament will continue with its efforts to inform, whilst carefully drawing the line between providing objective information and active campaigning in member states. I rush off to a curtailed meeting with a Japanese academic on my way to meet the President of the Swedish Parliament and a small delegation of Swedish MPs. Interestingly, for a country considered to be somewhat euro-sceptic, they assure me that support for the constitution is running at some 80% in the Swedish Parliament. A member of their Conservative party is most eloquent in supporting the constitution - oh for Conservatives like that in our country! The Labour MEPs have a briefing from Sir John Grant, Britain's Permanent Representative (Ambassador) to the European Union, on plans for Britain's Presidency of the EU Council in the second half of this year. Civil protection, better regulation, services, financial services, chemicals, terrorism, climate change, sugar, and (regarding external relations) Turkey, USA, Africa, and the WTO are all likely to feature prominently on the agenda, under a general theme of "Prosperity, Security and Openness to the World" The forward planning theme is pursued further in the floor of the House when Mr Barroso presents the detailed five-year programme of the new European Commission. Much of it will tally well with the UK priorities. Thursday 27 JanuaryOff to Dublin to address a meeting of the National Forum on Europe - a body created by the Irish government to debate European issues. I discuss the new EU constitution with ministers, senators, deputies and representatives of NGOs. Danish eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde was due to speak alongside me, but at the last minute his place is taken by Esko Seppänen, a Finnish eurosceptic. I am impressed by the high quality of debate in Ireland. Commentators on both sides of the debate are well-informed, moderate and analytical. This contrasts sharply with the UK, where mythology and exaggeration dominate - even among some politicians - and the tone of EU debate borders on hysterical. What can be done to make our debate more like Ireland's, I wonder? Sadly there is no time for sightseeing in this impressive city, though we are treated to a quick look round Dublin Castle, accompanied by a few fascinating historical anecdotes from our guide. After a quick visit to the European Parliament office in Dublin, I head back to Yorkshire in time to meet a Portuguese camera crew who will be shadowing me in my constituency work tomorrow. Friday 28 JanuaryA busy day. By 8am I'm in a BBC studio in Bradford, taking part in a live Radio 4 Today programme interview on the constitution, along with Neil O'Brien of the "Vote No" campaign. It goes well, though I am not impressed when John Humphrys decides to dedicate the interview to my rebuttals of Mr O'Brien's mythology. It strikes me again that this is a really big problem in the UK - too much time is spent dispelling rumours and inventions and not enough making the positive case for the EU. The full transcript is on the front page of my website. Later, I'm delighted to find that a local arch-eurosceptic admits that O'Brien was wrong on one point, at least: he tried to claim that the idea of a common defence policy is a new invention in the constitution, whereas - as I pointed out, and the EU referendum blog confirms - it was agreed as long ago as the Maastricht Treaty, signed by John Major and approved by the Commons over a decade ago. Common policy decisions in this field do, however, need all 25 countries to agree unanimously, failing which we go our separate ways. I also visit Bradford to see how our city centre redevelopment is progressing. The EU emblem near the building site confirms just how reliant on EU funding this huge and ambitious project is. In time, it will utterly transform the centre of Bradford, making a huge difference to the lives of everyone who lives or works there. Then to York and on to the village of Easingwold in North Yorkshire, where I have been invited to speak to more than 200 sixth formers about the EU, as part of their Citizenship course. They are a receptive and interested audience, and they ask some good questions. I'm shadowed all day by a TV crew from Portugal, who are making a programme about the UK and want to spend a day with an English MEP. I enjoy speaking to them and learning a little about how the media in Portugal treat European issues - despite the occasional need to walk down the same street three or four times for the cameras! In the evening, I speak at Halifax CLP with Alice Mahon, who is standing down as MP at the election after many years as championing good causes without fear or trepidation. Good discussion. Saturday 29 JanuaryPloughing through correspondence, I get to an e-mail from a well known eurosceptic who says he is fighting "against the EU, NAFTA, WTO, IMF, OWG, NWO" and more. In other words, "stop the world, I want to get off" - or, at least, "I don't want to talk to foreigners"! Monday 31 FebruaryAm again heard as a witness by the House of Lords European Committee, this time alone and in greater detail. They have come to Brussels and are hearing several people. I get nearly two hours with them. It is a real pleasure to discuss the constitution with such knowledgeable people who have a genuine will to explore the facts, not to grandstand about myths. Then to a meeting of Parliament's committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The Chairman, Jean-Louis Bourlanges MEP, one of Parliament's most colourful and eloquent figures, is standing down as chair; his wife is seriously ill. He makes an elegant speech in which he rightly points out that no politician is indispensable (despite what they like to think) as they are all easily enough replaced, but that family was different: if his wife thought he was replaceable then there would be something seriously wrong, and he is proud that she wants him by her side. |