The consultation period of the Independent Review of Football is in full swing, and this week has been particularly hectic.

As you may know, I chair the political working group of the Review and I am delighted that over 300,000 ordinary football fans have taken part in the consultation through the website (www.independentfootballreview.com) and I continue to urge you all to offer your opinions. Having such a wide consultation not only shows how many people care about “the beautiful game”, but it is of tremendous benefit to the future of the sport.

The purpose of the review is to look at the whole constellation of problems facing football, not least the growing concentration of wealth and succes among an ever-shrinking numbr of clubs.

This is a sore point in Yorkshire, which currently doesn't even have a single Premiership club (compared to 7 in the neighbouring North-West and 6 in London), let alone any likely to qualify for Europe, though at least that must please the Eurosceptics!

Take a look at the site for more information and to offer your own thoughts.

You may have seen the recent discussion on this blog regarding metrication. It certainly appears to have captured the attention of the readership. I received the letter below this morning:

"Dear Mr Corbett,

The opinion Poll in Metro regarding metrication of road signs was in fact bombed. The reason I know this is that I did my best to flight the individual responsible. Perhaps it is the same person that pointed out the poll to you. You will find when Metro reported on the poll it was 50% for and 50% against, having been mostly pro-metric the days before. This obviously spurred some sad individual on to "bomb" the poll, hence it being the no1 voted for poll. I do think all reference to this "poll" should be removed from your comments."

I'll leave you to make your own minds up!

I received the following correspondence from a constituent who makes some interesting points, and as the matter is highly topical I thought I'd post it in full on here...

Hello Richard,

There’s a controversy about company mergers that seems to be getting out-of-hand. Here’s a view that might help.

According to both Marxist and Capitalist interpretations, it doesn’t matter whether businesses operating from a country are owned by local shareholders or by those who live somewhere else. From both points-of-view, the concept of ‘national champions’ and of protecting ‘national firms’ from their shareholders selling out to those from other countries, is of much less relevance than how they operate in relation to their employees, suppliers and customers.

‘National Champions’ and protection from bidders (including so-called locusts) is a right-wing idea that seeks to reinforce the control of the workers, and to preserve market hegemonies and national hierarchies. It is a paradigm opposed to the objectives of both the EU and Socialism. Such nationalism is consistent with the pronouncements of Le Pen, Nick Griffin and their well-known and hated antecedents.

Moreover, replacing national institutions with pan-European ones has helped to make our EU the most successful peace process the world has ever known.

Giving access to bigger product markets has enabled poorer and small States to catch-up with their richer neighbours, who’ve been rewarded by new and growing markets on their doorsteps. Sharing their national currencies with the big economies has enabled small countries to gain from the lower borrowing and trading costs that arise from more liquid markets. Graduated opening of service markets and eroding discrimination in culture, trade, sport, music and transport has encouraged the ever closer union of peoples and ideas, without more Euro-bureaucracy. These are wonderful achievements in a continent otherwise well known for its history of extreme prejudice and violence.

We need to enable more pan-European institutions including pan-European companies and Trades Unions. We certainly don’t need more protectionism standing in the path of greater solidarity.

Allowing company mergers across borders – and where appropriate, encouraging them - enables firms to acquire, and share with their workers, knowledge and relationships that pushes them both along steeper learning curves. So those European peoples are gaining economies of both scale and knowledge within a huge market that even giant firms cannot dominate. Our country has been a major beneficiary of inward take-overs and mergers and all States need more of the same, not less.

The way our country gains from acquisitions is that complacency and narrow vision is challenged by outside investors, and who plainly value the potential of our firms more highly. The experience is that inward investors invest in generating higher productivity and value for all of the stakeholders. I share Gordon Brown’s vision that some European countries are limiting the opportunities for Europe by espousing their right-wing approach of protectionism.

By protecting so-called ‘national champions’, governments simply reinforce inefficiency and domestic exploitation. It’s no surprise that Italy and France (for example) have such low participation in paid work and have high social exclusions that spillover into angry protests and violence. British national experience is that cross-border take-overs bring dynamism, investment and access to markets that create better-paid jobs.

Intervention by EU institutions has helped in other fields. Football clubs now promote new forms of international understanding because the EU ruled that players could be transferred across boundaries without restriction. That intervention has invigorated British football, and is helping to erode national prejudices everywhere.

Does it matter if other countries pursue nationalist causes that injure their own economic health? Well, yes it does very much. Because we rely upon our neighbours’ prosperity for our trade, we need them to afford to buy from us. And, as we found in the 1930s, economic fascism is an infectious creed that tears us all down.

What the EU needs to do is encourage even more pan-European institutions and especially non-government ones such as firms. Developing trans-nationals through mergers, and allowing financial markets to become pan-European, are an essential part of bringing people together in peace and prosperity. Ownership of large companies is already more often accrued by pension funds and other forms of common ownership, than smaller ones.

I very much hope that the Socialist Group in the European Parliament will use all deliberate means to enable our ‘Economic Europe’ to triumph over ‘Economic Patriotism’.

With kind regards,

Andrew Dundas

Last Wednesday I was invited by the Danish Parliament to Copenhagen to give advice to their European Affairs Committee.

The Danish Folketing's EU Committee is one of the oldest and most respected of national Parliamentary committees set up to scrutinise EU business. In my view, they are in many ways a model: Danish ministers have to appear before the Committee before they go to Brussels and outline the positions they intend to take, receiving a sort of negotiating brief from the Committee. They also have to account for their actions afterwards.

This close scrutiny and dialogue with the ministers goes beyond the largely documentary based scrutiny that some other national Parliaments use for their EU work. Not that the Danish Parliament shirks from its share of paperwork: all EU documents are sent to it for examination.

The Committee also has regular public hearings with experts and others. My own session lasted a whole morning and I was interested to see that, once the MPs had finished asking their questions, members of the public present in the gallery are invited to pose questions as well - a practice that would be inconceivable in our own dear Westminster!

In my entry of 1st March I stated that "the metrication debate in the UK has run for over a hundred years, ever since the House of Commons first voted to go metric in 1863".

Confirmation that this issue will run and run has arrived with an email from a regular reader of this blog who has pointed to an opinion poll in "The Metro" which apparently shows only 38% in favour of metrication and 62% against. This is the exact mirror image of the opinion poll just one month ago in the Independent on Sunday which showed 62% in favour and 38% against.

As the figures fluctuates so wildly, it would suggest that views on this matter are not strongly held. Certainly I get very few letters or emails on this issue, but those that do write in on this subject are often passionate in their support or opposition, as the case may be, to metrication. As I said on 1st March, I don't quite share the venom of those who oppose us simply using the same weights and measures as the bulk of the rest of the world, and I am at a loss to see why they should think that metrication was all caused by the European Union.

What a result! I’d like to offer my warmest congratulations to Angela Sinfield of Bradford District Council for winning yesterdays by-election in Keighley West.
Angela not only overturned a BNP majority, but she now has her own majority of 603, gaining 1819 votes to their 1216.

This is a fantastic achievement. The BNP have concentrated their efforts in Keighley for some time, using aggressive, intimidatory tactics to frighten people into voting for them.

I visited Keighley twice during the campaign and was struck by how determined the community was to drive the BNP out. There was a sense of real anger from the electors that the BNP had damaged the reputation of Keighley. As Angela said last night, “The BNP need to get the message and realise that they are not welcome in Keighley”.

Lets hope those sentiments are shared across the country in May’s Local Government Elections.

You can find BBC coverage here -

The very nature of terrorism means that there is rarely good news to report; all the more reason to savour the moment when there is.

The ceasefire announced by Basque terrorist group ETA is most welcome. It is a sure sign that even the most hardened of terrorist organisations can come to their senses and realise that violence is counter productive whereas peaceful, democratic debate is the only viable way to settle differences of opinion.

ETA still has to prove that they are serious about this ceasefire, and that they are genuinely committed to peace, but nonetheless this is a start

I’ve been getting several letters from concerned constituents, after the Times, the Yorkshire Post and other leading papers reported that the EU has outlawed church organs. Hopefully you won’t be too surprised when I tell you that these reports should be filed along with the other baffling Euromyths; straight bananas and whatnot.

The reports come from the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive which will come into force in July. After July 1st, any new church organ will have to contain a reduced level of lead (below 0.1%) to meet safety standards. Existing organs in need of repair, resotoration and maintenance will be unaffected and will, I’m pleased to say, keep congregations raising the roof for many years to come.

The by-election phenomena is a curious thing (as some of you will know, the resignation of a BNP Councillor in Keighley West has triggered a by-election for Thursday 23rd March). When you’re out campaigning it can seem like nothing exists beyond the ward boundary. When it’s a BNP-held seat, however, it becomes a different story. Their beliefs are so extreme that the whole country should pay attention. If we don’t stamp out the far right’s presence in our region, then we become vulnerable to widespread preaching of hate.

I spent much of today talking to local residents in Keighley West (on one of the coldest days of the winter I might add!), and was delighted to see how many people were making a stand against the BNP. Undoubtedly there is a media backlash against the Labour Party at the moment, but it is imperative that those people who believe in equality, diversity and community all vote for Labour in this two-horse race and reject the far right, non-sensical policies of the BNP.

There have been many reports of the BNP using intimidatory tactics on the doorstep: you don’t have to put up with it, as one constituent quickly learnt. When I asked him if he had had such a visit, he pointed to his fully grown Doberman and laughed. I think he’ll be just fine.

I was amused to see that the "European Reform Forum" set up by arch-Eurosceptic Bill Cash MP has concluded that there is a "need to reform the existing European Treaties". They call for wide ranging debate and agreement on a set of reforms.

Isn't that exactly what the Constitutional Treaty - which they opposed vigorously - sought to do?

I was delighted to see that Commissioner Margot Wallström, the Vice President of the European Commission who hails from Sweden, has responded vigorously to the criticism of Tory leader Timothy Kirkhope MEP.

Unbelievably, Kirkhope had actually objected to suggestions that, in the national curriculum, schools should be required to teach children how local government, national government and EU institutions work! Local and national information was fine, but the inclusion of the European Union was labelled "brainwashing".

We should stop and think - what have the eurosceptics got to be afraid of if they allow our children to be taught about how the EU works?

Anyway, Wallström replied:

"I find it absolutely appalling. What do they mean? Should we keep it a secret that these institutions actually exist and take decisions that affect the daily lives of all European citizens? We teach people about our national political systems and decision making structures, of course they have to know what happens at the European level."

She went on to point out that "if more people knew about the CAP, maybe then we could reform it quicker".

Well done Margot!

More from the increasingly wise-sounding National Farmers' Union. Our regional director here in Yorkshire wrote the following in an article for British Farmer & Grower:

"In terms of actual trade flows the EU, far from being protectionist, imports more farm products from developing countries than the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada put together and absorbs 70% of the imports from least developed countries while the US takes just 17%. …

"The media delight in emphasising that the CAP represents 40% of the EU budget. This seems high until you take into account that the EU has no responsibility for health, education or any of the main expenditure items associated with government activity. In fact, CAP expenditure in the UK only amounts to some 0.5% of total government expenditure."

I would only add that CAP spending has anyway fallen from nearly 70% of the EU budget to just over 40% and is scheduled to fall to about 30% over the next 7 years, even ahead of the further review due in 2008.

An important part of being an MEP is learning about and responding to the concerns of constituents. I receive dozens of letters every day on a wide variety of issues, some of which I am able to help with directly, others I can raise with my colleagues in the European institutions, and still others who need pointing in the right direction to find help elsewhere.

Most messages from constituents are admirably specific, making clear what the constituent's concerns are and how I can help address them. This is not always the case, however, and I thought readers of this blog might be interested to read two slightly more quirky messages that I received on the same day last week. Here's the first, which I confess leaves me rather unsure how to proceed:

"Dear Mr Corbett,

"I am writing to tell you that my wife and I have grave concerns about the proposed revision of the EU regulation governing organic food and farming in the EU. Could you please pass on these concerns to the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, and let me know what she says.

Thank you,

[constituent's name]"

Well, I was just thinking that I'd be delighted to, if you told me what those concerns were, when along came a second message - a robust bit of lobbying if ever I saw one:

"I am writing to tell you that I have no concerns about the proposed revision of the EU regulation governing organic food and farming. Please pass on my lack of concerns to the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, and let me know what she says."

Inspired.

In an interview on Radio 4 on Monday, Lord Heseltine joined the ever-growing number of Tories lining up to quote their opposition to Cameron's pledge to withdraw Conservative MEPs from the centre-right mainstream. First, he made some interesting comment:

"I think that's wrong. He knows it and I've told him, and indeed I've made it clear that I will say so if it happens. It hasn't happened and I hope it doesn't happen. But I will also tell you something else: although I happen to think it's an important issue down in the Bull and Bush, there's not a vote to be gained or lost over the issue."

Now there's an interesting point. If there's not a vote to be gained or lost, why on earth is Cameron pursuing it? The answer, of course, is that there are votes of a sort: he had to court the hard-line eurosceptic faction in his party during his own leadership election campaign, and EPP withdrawal was the promise he used to win them over.

More interesting still, however, was his assessment of Cameron's integrity over the issue:

"The reality of politics today for any government is that you have to get on with your European colleagues. There is a team there, they are important to you, they are making decisions. You are either on the team or you're not, and if you're not on the team, you're selling out British interests. David Cameron would never do that. So in reality, the new Conservative government, when it's formed, will do what every Conservative government has done since the 1960s and that is to pursue a broadly pro-European policy."

Meanwhile, on quite a different matter, I was delighted to be voted Deputy Leader of the EPLP (i.e. the Labour MEPs) last night by a 75% majority against one other candidate. I am chuffed to receive such confidence from those who know my work the best.

Readers with long memories will remember Dan Hannan's previous attempts to draw parallels between the European Union and various historical empire-builders. He hasn't resorted to the old trick of dragging in Hitler yet, but in a letter to the Spectator last week (subscription required), he did the next-best thing:

"I'd have thought Genghis was a clear-cut leftie. His tactic, on conquering a tribe, was to liquidate the aristocracy and elevate the lower orders. He was a proto-Europhile, mingling his subject clans so as to prevent the development of a sense of national identity."

Unity in diversity, anyone?

I'm speechless: a letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post defies further comment:

"A recent report quoted the value of the euro as 66p per euro. This proves that in no way could this be acceptable in this country as this would make the poor even poorer. £200 becomes £120! Everything would almost double in price. The entire economy would end in total chaos."

Interesting to see that Eurosceptics are focusing on a recent European Court of Justice judgement that confirmed that the EU is entitled to require member states to treat certain violations of European legislation as criminal offences. Needless to say, Eurosceptics have gone way over the top and referred to the European Commission being able to determine sentences, claiming that "Brussels" will determine criminal penalties.

If they thought a little bit further than the next tabloid headline, they might get involved in a sensible discussion about what this ruling actually means - and, who knows, they might even welcome it! Do they really think that, for instance, Spain should merely give token fines to fishermen who catch more than their quota in British waters? Or that people who put toxic substances into waterways, in violation of EU law, should not be subject to any criminal court proceedings in their country?

Essentially, the ruling confirms that member states can be required to get tough with those who violate the law. This is a good thing for everyone. When we agree common European laws with our neighbouring countries in the EU, surely it is our right to expect our partners to implement it properly, and to sanction those who violate the law in their country just as we would sanction those who violate it in our country? What would be the point in agreeing those common laws if our neighbours were free to leave violations unpunished?

Rather than welcome this positive feature of the EU - or even debate it - Eurosceptics would rather stir up unfounded fears that the European Commission, and not the national courts, will determine sentences or, at the very least, that we are going to have a "harmonised criminal law across the union" (to quote UKIP's press officer, Gawain Towler).

Mr Towler even berates a law firm for its supposed ignorance when they rightly say that "the European Court's ruling does not give the Commission powers to jail people…. Any laws involving criminal sanctions will have to be adopted and passed by the national Parliament's of each member state. All the Commission can do is to propose new laws for member states to adopt". Yet, the lawyers are exactly right and UKIP is completely wrong.

A political party is only as good as its future, and with this in mind I was interested to see the writings of cameronleadership.co.uk, a website created by four young Conservatives to monitor the progress of David Cameron.

I noticed an entry on UKIP, and how they can be a "bunch of nutjobs". Fair enough I thought. That is until the following sentence read "but have also done some good work in Brussels".

Needless to say, the writer doesn't go on to explain what this "good work" is. While their absenteesism certainly makes the European Parliament a more pleasant place to be, ignoring the needs and rights of their constituents doesn't amount to "good work" in my view.

If this is the view of the Conservative's next generation, then the EPP will be glad to see the back of them.

A poll in the Independent on Sunday showed 62% in favour of Britain going completely metric, with 38% opposed.

The metrication debate in the UK has run for over 100 years, ever since the House of Commons first voted to go metric back in 1863. Meanwhile, most of the world has gone metric - even America for many purposes. (There's a fascinating article on the subject at Wikipedia.)

Yet the very idea of using the same measurements as the rest of the world seems to make some people apoplectic - at least if they think it is something to do with the European Union! Take Peter Hitchens in the latest Mail on Sunday (registration required):

"Bureaucrats and tyrants love metres and kilos and hectares, in the same way that they love concrete and wide, straight streets."

Pretty heady stuff for what most of the world thinks of as the simple convenience of using the standard measurements!

And he goes on - trying to blame what he thinks is unpopular on the EU:

"Our absorption into the EU means that we are undergoing many of the things a conquered people must endure; the introduction of foreign laws and customs, the obliteration of our own, the deliberate destruction of familiar landmarks like imperial measurements"

No doubt, many people will believe him that metrication is all because of the EU. But the Independent on Sunday's opinion poll shows that most of them might actually think better of the EU for it! Hard luck, Mr Hitchens!