I see that Amanda Platell's diary in the Daily Mail last Saturday revives the old Tory tactic of massive criticism of Neil Kinnock - not of his views, but pure personal abuse. She calls him dishonest, without any attempt to back up the accusation with facts, and "one of the rudest men in politics". (The original piece isn't online, but it's selectively quoted here.)

As ever, a bit of innuendo about Europe is thrown in: "For years, his entire family has gorged on the EU gravy train."

Eh? Neil's salary as a Commissioner was comparable to that of a minister, and Glenys's, as an elected MEP, is identical to that of an MP, with broadly the same expenses. Yet one never hears the Mail or other Eurosceptic newspapers refer to anyone "gorged on the Westminster gravy train"!

Maybe politicians' salaries are too high, maybe not. But to attack just the European salaries is rank hypocrisy.

Another ill-informed Eurosceptic line of reasoning, this time in a letter in the Western Morning News on 24 February. Apart from a swipe at local (Conservative) MEP Caroline Jackson and at "unelected groups in Brussels and Strasbourg" (eh?!), it offers a suggestion as to how the EU should work:

"The ideal would be for the EU bureaucrats to make recommendations, offer advice, suggest improvements and best practice, and then leave it to the elected governments to listen and take action if they want to."

More by luck than judgement, this ill-informed writer has hit on a good description of exactly how things actually do work at European level! The "bureaucrats" do indeed propose and the ministers from "elected governments listen and take action if they want to". For good measure, they are subject to scrutiny by an elected parliament as well.

It's a pity that so many base their ideas on the EU on complete ignorance of how it actually functions!

Some of you may have noticed Quentin Peel’s article in the Financial Times (paid subscription necessary), lavishing MEPs with praise for the passing of the heavily amended Services Directive. Mr Peel goes as far as saying that the European Parliament “took a core piece of EU legislation and voted to change it drastically”, and in doing so we “may well have saved it”.

It's worth pointing out that this is our job! This is what we do, usually unnnoticed, week in, week out.

It's often hard for the general public to see through the eurosceptic mist, especially with nonsense claims of “unelected bureaucrats” floating around. But now that Mr Peel has set a precedent, perhaps other journalists will follow suit?

Eurosceptics frequently complain that our newspapers' European correspondents are supposedly in bed with the European Union and therefore are not critical enough (!) of its activities. They sometimes even insinuate that such journalists are in the pay of the EU.

It was therefore all the more interesting to read in EU Reporter (pdf link) that UKIP's own political group in the European Parliament has been quietly subsidising the EUobserver website. This press website claims to be independent, but it now appears that it's in the pay of the highly Eurosceptic political group - which possibly explains why it also displays a prominent link to EUabc.com, another supposedly independent site that seems mostly to display the work of Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde - the co-leader (with Nigel Farage) of UKIP’s political group, the Independence and Democracy Group. It also turns out that the owner and publisher of EUobserver is Lisbeth Kirk, who just happens to be married to Jens Peter Bonde!

According to EU Reporter, taxpayers’ money is being used by Eurosceptics to retain experienced journalists to write for EUobserver - which can "also rely on the salaried EU Parliament staffers to help produce a product that generates income in the private sector from advertising and sponsorship".

So it would seem the Eurosceptics are doing precisely what they complain that other parties do! Yet another example of UKIP's hypocrisy?

I nearly fell off my chair when I read what UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass wrote in a letter to the editor of EU Reporter, a magazine aimed at small businesses. Referring to an article I had written in the same magazine, Mr Nattrass wrote:

"What the Europhile Richard Corbett MEP describes as the euro sceptic attack on his vision in your 30th January issue is no such thing. In fact UKIP can agree with most of what he has written!"

He then goes on to list a few specific points over which he disagrees - leaving the majority of my article untouched.

So we are to infer that UKIP now agrees with the main thrust of my article, as follows:

• When we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red tape.
• European legislation is not adopted against the will of the Member States.
• The EU single market has brought us all financial benefits in the region of €2000 per family per year.

Needless to say, Mr Nattrass's letter was not entirely free of the usual UKIP froth.

He asks, "What has the imposition of a new driving licence on UK motorcyclists got to do with free trade?" This is a bizarre question. Why should it be anything to do with free trade if governments choose to require drivers to be licensed? Surely, all governments do this for traffic safety reasons. The only EU dimension is to cut bureaucracy and red tape by agreeing a single set of licence types rather than the 80-odd that used to be in force across Europe - thereby also making it easier for the police to check people actually do have valid driving licences. Now, would Mr Nattrass rather that were not the case?

He then asks, “Why do they want to make our ports more difficult to operate?”. Who does he mean by "they"? Surely not the European Parliament - which just threw out proposals for changing to the current system for ports.

He then asks why "our parliament" is "stopped by the EU" from debating capital punishment? Come on, Mr Nattrass. Surely, after nearly two years as an MEP, you must have picked up at least the basics of how things work? You must know that reason the UK and more than 40 other countries agreed to scrap the death penalty has nothing at all to do with the EU. It's the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up at Britain's initiative shortly after the Second World War. Rather than admit the facts, Mr Nattrass is trying to recruit supporters of the death penalty to support his anti-European political ends!

You know, for all that I dislike UKIP, at least they're consistent. When the EU announces something - no matter how worthy the measure may be, and no matter how impossible it would be to implement those measures without EU co-operation - UKIP immediately comes out shouting and screaming about how much they detest it.

The Tories are different, however. The UK has been an EU member for more than 30 years now and the Conservatives still can't decide where their principles lie. Every time you think they're adopting a more sensible position on European co-operation, their extreme tendencies kick in and they're arguing for withdrawal (i.e. an end to all joint EU action). But then, the next thing you know, they're welcoming that same joint action on another issue because it gives them a chance to snap off a cheap shot at the government. Witness:

"Responding to the European Commission's warning to energy companies over price-rigging, Shadow Energy Minister, Charles Hendry said:

"'I welcome the crackdown against anti-competitive practices that the European Commission has announced. The Conservative Party has been speaking out and campaigning on this issue for months so we wonder why it has taken the EU to articulate its concerns for the Government to sit up and take notice.'"

While researching yesterday's blog entry, I found the following interesting tidbit on a media and journalism forum:

“In the UK, a recent series of articles in The Daily Express reporting that ‘hordes of Gypsies’ are ready to ‘flood in’ to the country on 1 May provoked a strong reaction. The Minister for Europe, Denis McShane, called it a ‘rancid hate campaign’, with other MPs condemning it as ‘obscene’ and ‘racist’. What is particularly striking about this, though, is that the newspaper’s own journalists reported the stories to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). They sought help from the PCC to protect them by introducing a ‘conscience clause’ to protect those who resist pressure to produce stories they regard as racist.

“Editorial pressure and interference — such as the fact that the newspaper’s editor, Peter Hill, admits that proprietor Richard Desmond contributes to editing the front pages — restricts the ability of journalists to write fair, balanced and truthful articles and stories. The fact that Peter Hill is a member of the very same PCC to which the journalists complained denies journalists adequate protection. The PCC ruled that it has no jurisdiction to respond to the journalists’ call. The issue has now been taken up as a campaign by the NUJ and a group of Labour Party MPs.”

When the Express's own journalists rebel against what they're being asked to write, surely some alarm bells should be set ringing…!

When we welcomed 10 new European countries into the EU last year, there was much debate among the EU ‘old 15’ over whether they should open up their labour markets to workers from the new member states. Under EU rules, all citizens are free to live and work in any European country, but several governments agreed temporary restrictions, fearing that labour markets would not be able to cope with the influx of new workers.

These genuine – although misguided – concerns were, of course, compounded by the xenophobic press in the UK. A series of “rancid hate campaigns” (in the words of Denis McShane) culminated in the Daily Express screaming, “The Roma gypsies of Eastern Europe are heading to Britain to leech on us. We do not want them here”. One newspaper even invented a story about every plane from eastern Europe being full of migrants ready to steal our jobs — a claim that was later revealed to be an abject lie, and the paper in question was forced to issue an apology.

In the end, three countries — Britain, Ireland and Sweden — decided not to impose restrictions on migrant workers. This was a brave move, and according to a new report out this week, it has paid off. Not only have we patently not been flooded by migrant workers, but the European Commission’s investigation into the economic effects of workers from the new member states concluded the following:

Countries that have opened their labour markets fully are ‘upbeat’ about it

Migration flows have had a ‘positive effect’ on Europe’s economy

The flow of workers has not been big enough to swamp labour markets

The barriers erected by most of the older EU states have not kept workers out

Restrictions may lead to more ‘undeclared work’ by migrants

The new workers fill gaps in labour markets, particularly in construction and catering

In the light of this new evidence, the Tories hurriedly performed a sharp U-turn and condemned the “protectionist” instincts of countries like Germany and Austria – even though, nine months ago, they were urging Tony Blair to adopt those very same instincts.

I met the European Commissioner for consumer protection yesterday to discuss the growing problem of the European City Guide family of scams (click here).

It was a productive meeting. Commissioner Kyprianou confirmed that he is indeed aware of the scams and takes them very seriously. The Commission is currently reviewing consumer protection legislation to see where it can be strengthened, but this review doesn't currently include business-to-business issues.

Therefore, Mr Kyprianou also agreed to set up a meeting within his department to discuss specifically how EU law for business-to-business transactions might be improved. This will take place as soon as next week and will specifically take the ECG scam into account. I have been given the contact details of the person who will be leading the discussion and will call him next week.

Obviously the above points relate to more long-term actions. But the Commission only has the power to draft new EU laws and to enforce those that already exist - it can't influence judicial or police matters in member states.

However, the Commissioner also reported on recent communication with the Spanish authorities, where the European City Guide is currently based. Apparently, the Valencian consumer protection directorate has received 700 complaints lodged against ECG since 2003. Of these, they have upheld 450, resulting in the contract being cancelled and all fees reimbursed to customers. 150 more are still outstanding. (Presumably, the remaining 100 were dismissed - I don't know.)

The directorate also met with ECG a year ago. They ordered them to revise their contract in order to make it less misleading, and to publish a code of conduct on their website. Both these have now been done, as far as the Commissioner is aware.

The Commissioner confirmed that laws are already in place to protect both consumers and businesses against misleading advertising. He understands that ECG does not ever take its victims to court, and only threatens to do so, but he urges anyone who thinks they have been duped to go to court themselves, where the laws exist to protect them. It is for national jurisdictions and national courts to enforce the European-level laws. (More details here.)

So I would once again urge everyone who's being harassed by ECG to write to their MEP and to ask him or her to write to Commissioner Kyprianou. I am also strengthening my advice to victims of the ECG scam:

• Do not pay.
• Write to the Valencian authorities and make the following points: (1) the contract is still misleading despite the changes; (2) demand action against ECG; (3) demand reimbursement of any sums already paid, if there are any.
• Write to your local MEP and make the following points: (1) the contract is still misleading; (2) the Commission should take cases like this into account in their current review of consumer protection legislation.
• Take legal advice and consider taking the matter to court. EU-wide laws exist and the fact that the scam is based in another EU country will not prevent UK courts from implementing those laws. UK courts have the power to cancel contracts.

I also intend to write to all my MEP colleagues, asking them to treat ECG-related complaints from their constituents very seriously and to consider sending them on to the Commissioner.

Here comes an astonishing admission from the Eurosceptics: the European Commission simply does what our national governments ask it to do!

We pro-Europeans have been making that point for a while, of course, but that doesn't make it any the less surprising when the rabidly anti-EU European Foundation confesses in a press release today (not yet available online):

"In the end, as with past trade rounds, successful completion of the Doha round is likely to require the close personal commitment of the heads of government of all the major countries. In the case of the EU, Stewart-Brown argues [in the European Foundation's journal], that will mean Chancellor Merkel and President Chirac. [Trade Commissioner] Mandelson, as it appeared at Hong Kong, is little more than a pawn in their hands."

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to remind the Foundation of that point next time they publish some politically-motivated diatribe or other about how the European Commission is always telling nation states what to do?

Let's talk about chickens. Earlier this year, we debated and amended proposals designed to improve the welfare of chickens bred for meat in the EU. Animal welfare issues are very important in the minds of my constituents, and I know from my postbag that these EU-wide reforms are popular in Yorkshire.

Now let's talk about UKIP, who rejected these new measures and voted against amendments tabled to strengthen them. Specifically, UKIP voted against amendments designed to:

• control imports of chickens from third countries where farms don't stick to the same rules; and


• reduce the 'stocking density', i.e. how many chickens can be placed in a single area.

Now, I don't know whether they're eager for chickens to suffer or whether they just vote blindly without reading the text. Either way, it's hardly satisfactory for British MEPs to vote against measures which are designed to improve the health and welfare of farm animals.

Just to drive the point home, here's the justification put forward for reducing stocking density:

"From a stocking density of 20kg/m2 onwards, animal welfare problems increase. Behaviour and leg disorder studies clearly show that high stocking density above 25 kg per square metre leads to serious welfare problems, as the restriction of movement causes foot pad dematitis, leg problems, breast blisters, restriction of normal behaviour, and ultimately high mortality rates."

Surely this is something that UK MEPs should be at the forefront of tackling?!

Good news came this morning in the form of an e-mail from the Swansea shopkeeper who runs www.stopecg.org and campaigns against the European City Guide family of mailing scams. (See previous blog entries here, here, and here.)

As well as Switzerland’s ongoing investigation into the scam, more legal action is now underway. An Austrian consumer pressure group, the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb (‘Association for Protection Against Unfair Business Practices’), is seeking an injunction in Austria’s highest court to prevent Construct Data, one of the ECG’s sister scams, from mailing their deceptive contracts to target businesses – and from collecting unpaid debts from past victims of the scam.

Consequently, stopecg.org advises the following:

This case has profound implications for those in dispute with Construct Data because if the injunction is successful it will stop Construct Data from collecting debts from misleading contracts mailed in the past. It is for this reason that we strongly advise companies in dispute with Construct Data to refuse to pay, at the very least until the outcome of this case is known. It must be understood that this case may not override civil action between Construct Data and a company in dispute with them.

Nicholas Watt, the Guardian’s European editor, has put together a very astute analysis of the mess the Tory MEPs have got themselves into over their will-we-won’t-we attitude to leaving the EPP. He brings up an extra problem I’ve so far neglected in this blog: how will Europe’s family of mainstream centre-right parties react to the decision to go renegade?

By all accounts, the answer is: very badly. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has reportedly told Cameron that he is “weak”. Other leaders have said that they will downgrade links with the Conservative party. Cameron will be losing a lot of friends in parties of government across the EU — something he'll undoubtedly come to regret if the Tories ever make it back into government here.

The most astonishing observation of this kind came from UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

“If the Conservatives were to form the next government they would probably serve the national interest better by being part of the family of European governments rather than being on the fringes. If we are going to stay in the EU it would be better to have a government that was in negotiations with other governments in Europe rather than one that has distinctly frosty relations. …

“In the EPP they [the Tories] are banded together with other parties of government. If they leave the EPP and form their own group they will have to form a group with parties whose political culture will provide a huge embarrassment to David Cameron back home. Poland’s Law and Justice Party’s stance on abortion and homosexuality will provide Mr Cameron with the hugest embarrassments back home.”

In today's Telegraph, another instance of farmers welcoming the recent reforms of the CAP:

"The National Farmers' Union believes the outlook for sheep farming is positive. CAP reform has forced many producers to scale down their flocks to the optimal size and become more efficient. Yet last year the number of lambs and sheep being slaughtered actually rose."

Just as British MPs are entitled to question Government ministers, MEPs have the right to question representatives from the Council and the Commission, either in writing or on the floor of Parliament. This is one of the ways in which the European Parliament holds the other institutions to account.

The nature of these questions can vary. Some are straightforwardly factual, asking for particular information. Others challenge ministers or Commissioners over their actions or intentions. Still others are there to make a political point, which can be particularly effective now that anyone can check up on their MEPs’ activities via the Europarl website.

As one might imagine in a Parliament which contains MEPs from every shade of the political spectrum, there are some members whose questions are not always, shall we say, entirely germane. But what’s even stranger is that one such individual, a certain Ashley Mote MEP, has acquired the bizarre habit of copying all his submissions to the entire Parliament via e-mail. I should explain: the e-mail system we have here in Parliament makes it easy for us to e-mail a single colleague or a group, but when it comes to writing to every single MEP in the building, most members exercise a degree of common-sense and are able to restrain themselves from flooding the system.

Not, sadly, Mr Mote. When he feels the need to expound his particular political agenda, hundreds of copies of his missives go whizzing through the ether into the inboxes of every MEP in the building. Most are swiftly transferred to wastebaskets, but of course the Commission or Council staff who receive the actual questions don’t have that option: instead, they have to spend time translating the questions into various languages, forwarding them to the relevant officials, researching responses and publishing the answers. When the questions involve holding the Commission to account, this is money well spent; but when they are nothing but childish timewasting or political points-scoring, this amounts to a spectacular abuse of taxpayers’ money.

Occasionally, someone takes the time to reply to Mr Mote and raises a chuckle with the rest of us. This actually happened twice last week. Charles Tannock, a Tory psychiatrist-turned-politician from London, responded to a Mote classic with the following:

Why are you wasting valuable time of Council officials (and therefore EU taxpayers money which includes the UK!) in translating and having to answer such ridiculous and purposeless PQs.

How about spending more time in getting involved in a constructive but critical dialogue with other EU institutions which serves the interest of your constituents and the rest of humanity.

No reply was, sadly, forthcoming.

Then there was this delightfully tongue-in-cheek response from an SNP member:

Dear colleagues,

I do apologise for the mass nature of this e-mail, though I feel it only right that I bring a marvellous e-mail facility to your attention.

If you are aware of a persistent ‘spammer’ and are tired of your inbox clogging with meaningless nonsense, then you can set up an ‘e-mail rule’ to manage your inbox.

For example, if you receive an e-mail from an individual you are quite sure has little worthwhile to contribute and you feel safe to block their e-mails from evermore, then right click on that e-mail and take the ‘create rule’ option.

… Having been using it for some months, I can vouch for how effective it is. My own ‘list of doom’ extends to a mere 15 individuals yet the rubbish e-mails I get is drastically reduced.

Touché.

I’ve recently had drawn to my attention a rather handy site called European Law Monitor. The site is aimed at constituents and organisations who need fairly detailed information on EU legislative proposals – what their content is, what stage they’ve reached in the legislative procedure, and how best to influence them. If banging your head against the virtual brick wall of europa.eu.int is starting to cause bruises, I can highly recommend it.

I also hear on the grapevine that ELM is planning to try to get more MEPs involved in the site so it can become less of a one-way lobby portal and more of a two-way interaction. Anything which helps to improve dialogue between citizens and their elected politicians has got to be a good thing! Watch this space.

There's an interesting piece on today's BBC website about the EU and citizens' confidence.