I have voted with enthusiasm in favour an excellent parliamentary initiative by my colleague Gary Titley. It proposes a pan-European automatic emergency call system. In the event of a road accident, the "eCall" device in the vehicle will automatically dial the nearest emergency call centre, also providing information on the precise location of the accident. This will result in a dramatic reduction in rescue time and make it possible to treat more injuries in the crucial 'golden hour' following the accident.

The advantage of this system is not only that it will help save lives but also that it will reduce congestion time and contribute to the efficiency of road transportation in Europe with a reduction of external costs.

It is an excellent example of the advantages of action at EU level, complementing the common emergency telephone number (112) which I was involved in suggesting when I was a junior civil servant many years ago.

I see that my own Shipley MP, the young right-wing Tory Phillip Davies, has launched a "Better Off Out" campaign urging Britain to leave the European Union. Now we know why UKIP didn´t put up a candidate against him in the General Election, which enabled him to win the seat by a very small margin with their support - and now it´s payback time!

I see that David Cameron has already ticked him off. He realises that their is a real danger to the Conservative attempts at revival from it´s lunatic fringe. I´m told that Mr Davies has also made comments sympathetic to the BNP and I have myself read his remarks attacking what he calls "political correctness" but most people would call politeness.

Quite how Britain would be "better off out" is hard to see. We would be leaving our "neighbourhood committee" where we cooperate with all our neighbouring countries. We would be walking away from our main export market (which takes nearly 60% of our exports on which nearly 3 million jobs depend). We would undermine a structure that has secured peace in our area for three generations. We would lose a voice around the table at which decisions that affect us are taken. Our citizens would lose their rights to travel freely, work and live in other EU countries. I could go on and on and on...

Todays newspapers focus on Labour´s Deputy Leader having had an affair. Not so long ago, it was revealed that former Conservative Leader John Major had had an affair, as had Liberal leader Paddy Ashdown. Nor are the minor parties immune: UKIP´s leader in the EP Nigel Farrage was revealed only a few months ago with graphic details - not to mention Godfrey Bloom's admission that he visited brothels.

So what conclusion to draw? All parties seem equally exposed, so it's hard to draw political conclusions. Nor can personal conclusions be drawn without knowing more about the private life of the individuals concerned. Would it not be better if, as in most other European countries, the press were not to focus in on salacious gossip about public figures but more on the real issues they are dealing with?

I was delighted to see that a poll of women and younger people showed that most people believe “Britain’s future lies with Europe” (Populus and the Times, 20th April).

If women are becoming increasingly receptive to European issues, I can only presume that this is the reason why UKIP has no female MEPs and the Tories only have one!

You’ve all read Eurosceptic claims that the European Parliament has no powers or simply “rubber-stamps” EU legislation. It’s one of those lies that they hope will gain currency by constant repetition.

So it was interesting to see their strategy undermined by no less a person than Nigel Farage’s partner as co-leader of UKIP’s Group in the European Parliament, Jens-Peter Bonde MEP. In a recent article in EU Observer he wrote:

“This week the European Parliament made a difference. We gave our Yes to a compromise regulation on fluorinated gases (F-gases) raising general standards and at the same time allowing Denmark and Austria to continue their bans on the use of F-gases…. the European Parliament proposed changing the proposal for total harmonisation into a minimum-regulation allowing countries to keep and insert stricter rules.”

Not only that, he admitted that the small groups in the EP can make a difference, something Eurosceptic MEPs generally deny, saying: “The amendment was proposed by Dutch MEP Hans Blokland and myself on behalf of our little group. It shows that members from small groups have the same possibility to influence legislation as MEPs from bigger groups”.

Indeed, the European Parliament is not a rubber-stamp parliament. It has no in-built automatic majority, unlike many national parliaments. To pass a proposal or an amendment, you need to build your majority case-by-case through explanation, persuasion and negotiation with colleagues from different parties and countries. As Bonde pointed out in his article: “We could not have won the battle without cross party cooperation.”

In short, if you get stuck in, work hard at talking to others and arguing the merits of your case, you will succeed. Perhaps we can now look forward to a change of attitude of the UKIP MEPs and see them actually doing some work and not just turning up only at votes to oppose everything without even reading the content.

In case anyone thinks that I have it in for EUObserver, now that their close links to the anti-EU “Independence & Democracy” group have been revealed, let me advertise an interesting article they carried on the “comment” section of their web-site:

http://euobserver.com/9/21373

So it seems that the Conservatives are rediscovering the value of strong European institutions now that they are confronted with national protectionism in other EU countries. The rise of "economic patriotism" in France and elsewhere, threatening to exclude British businesses that compete with their national champions, has produced a flood of Conservative MEPs calling for stronger action by the Commission to enforce European Single Market rules. Sometimes they even go further. Thus, Phillip Bushill-Matthews tabled a question at question time to the Commission last week, asking:

"Does the Commission have sufficient powers to effectively challenge countries that unilaterally choose to label certain industrial sectors as off-limits because of a declared national interest that is self-defined? Should the EU be granted any further powers in order to take control of this situation and if so what should these be and how should they be advanced?"

It's not long ago that Tory MEPs were moaning about the over powerful Commission interfering in national life. Now they are rushing to strengthen it further.

Interestingly, the same point was made recently by the Daily Telegraph’s European correspondent, David Rennie, in his recent article in The Spectator (11 March, pp20-21). He wrote that “all the current threats to the single market pose a real political dilemma for British Eurosceptics and the Conservative party – indeed for anyone who claims to support free trade and business. There is one mechanism for defending the single market, and it lies with the supranational powers of the European Commission…”

I was reading some of the questions put to Douglas Alexander (Minister of State for Europe) on a BBC online forum today. Some people asked some interesting and probing questions regarding the future of the EU, the constitution and its relevance, and it was good to see such a level of engagement.

However, many contributions displayed a worryingly low level of basic information and knowledge about the EU actually works. It was also notable that the lower the information level, the more Eurosceptic the attitude (in most cases).

It is clear why Eurosceptic campaigers want to keep the level of information low. They have consistently opposed proposals to increase public information materials and to include teaching about how the EU works (just as we teach how national and local government works) in schools.

Until this happens, we will always have to deal with ill-informed rants about how “unelected bureaucrats in Brussels have replaced our own Sovereignty”.

I chuckled when I saw Nick Martinek’s latest letter in the Yorkshire Post complaining about my “low standards” of argument. Charming! Nonetheless it would be fascinating to see where he got his figures. “We do not elect 90 per cent of MEPs, or 90 per cent of the EU Council” he claims. Well, I’m sure that’s news
to the MEPs and Government Ministers who battled hard in elections to win their seats!

As for the idea that the EU is attempting to ban minor political
parties from entering elections, it really does make me wonder who cooks up
these bizarre attempts at scare mongering. Of course, any system of state funding for parties is limited. Joe Bloggs couldn’t set up a political party and expect to receive a fat cheque, signed by the tax-payers, to help him get started. It is absolutely right that state funding should be offered to real parties which actually have members and a degree of support from the public as shown in elections. That is how it works in Britain (where we do already have some state support through free TV party political brodcasts, free mailing of electoral addresses and "short" money given by the House of Commons to opposition parties). It is also how it works for the limited support given by the European Paliament to help with the work of political parties at European level.

That under no circumstances implies that smaller parties are excluded - they get their share. Nor are they banned from running campaigns or raising their own funds, and certainly not required to "toe the EU line" and I suspect that Mr Martinek knows it.

Time and time again, Eurosceptics claim that the EU is ignoring voters in trying to salvage the constitutional treaty. Tell that to the voters of Spain, who endorsed it by a large majority. In fact, 16 countries have now ratified the treaty. It has the support of a majority of EU Member States.

So, why is it “undemocratic” to take account of the views of the majority and to try to find out what can be done to reconcile the majority and minority viewpoints?

I read with intertest William Rees-Mogg's comments in the Times on
David Cameron'...

He said:

"Mr Cameron then decided, having done his bit to give the UKIP the publicity it badly needed, that he would be wise to shut up. He did not refer at all to Europe in his leader's speech in Manchester on Saturday. This omission, however, made his speech sound strangely lop-sided, since most of his main themes had a European aspect that he did not mention…If they are to regain the trust of moderate Eurosceptics, who are among their own voters, they will have to define their European policy in frank terms. Silence on Europe will not be good enough."

Let's be clear, the reason why Mr Cameron didn’t mention Europe in his speech is because he cannot unite his party on this issue. Already, the little he HAS said is dividing his party badly. If he sticks to his promise to take the Tories out of the European People’s party group in the European Parliament, most of his MEPs would rebel and stay put. Those that didn't would end up sitting with members even more “loony” than UKIPs.

Cameron would have loved the cheap applause he would have got from his first conference if he had been able to announce the withdrawal from the EPP. But, he knows the price he would have to pay in terms of external credibility and internal divisions would be too high.

Far easier to ignore the issue and hope that no one notices that six months after he promised withdrawal, his MEPs are still with the EPP.

A recurring Eurosceptic argument is the supposed threat from European Union to Britain’s “ancient liberties”. This begs two questions: how well is liberty protected by British institutions and how much are European institutions a threat or a safeguard?

On the former point, I came across the following quote from Lord Hailsham, former Tory Lord Chancellor, in his article "Is it Time for Britain to Adopt a Written Constitution?”

“The constitutional law of this island is based on the ancient prerogatives of the Crown, and the various Acts of Parliament by which these have been modified or extended. We have always possessed a strong central government, and when the powers of Crown and Parliament are united under a strong administration, the legal powers of government are virtually unlimited. The limitations are not imposed by law. In theory Parliament is supreme. There is nothing legally that it cannot do, and practically nothing which, at one time or another, it has not done. It has prolonged its own life. It has taken away the lives and liberties of its fellow citizens without semblance of a fair trial. It has confiscated property. It has ratified revolutions. In this we are almost unique. Few democracies, including the Commonwealth, possess theses powers or anything like them. Their powers are limited by a Constitution which they have no right to exceed. Only the British live under the authority of a rule absolute in theory, if tolerable in practice. In our lifetime the use of the Parliament's powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances have been rendered increasingly ineffective by the concentration of their deductive operation more and more in the House of Commons, in the government side of the House of Commons, in the Cabinet within the government side, and in the Prime Minister within the Cabinet."

In other words, there is no strong domestic protection of our liberties at all, let alone our “ancient liberties” (and only a few of our liberties are actually very ancient).

By contrast, all post-war (and many pre-war) European democracies as well as the USA and others all have written constitutions that cannot be changed at whim by governments or by a simple parliamentary majority. They generally entrench certain rights and provide checks and balances between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

The second question is what has been the European impact on this state of affairs? It has been twofold:

The European Convention on Human Rights (which contrary to popular belief has nothing to do with the EU) is a definition of fundamental rights drawn up after the war, largely inspired by Britain, to which over 40 countries now subscribe. It is a common yardstick by which these countries accept to be judged. Citizens can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic legal remedies if they feel their rights under the Convention have not been respected. British citizens have won more cases against their own government than citizens of almost any other country, which is a telling comment on the low level of protection of fundamental rights in Britain. As a result, the UK decided in the late 1990s to incorporate the whole Convention into its domestic law to make the rights enforceable in domestic courts.

The European Union, through which Britain and its neighbouring countries have agreed to act jointly in certain fields. Is there any chance that the EU might act in a way that threatens our liberties? Well, the EU does have a number of safeguards that we don’t have at national level. First, any legislation the EU adopts is subject to judicial review and can be overturned by the Courts if it goes beyond the limited field laid down in the treaty, if it violates fundamental rights or if procedures have not been properly respected. Second, no significant legislation can be adopted without the approval of a very large majority (and sometimes unanimity) of the governments of the Member States. This ensures that everything is looked at and scrutinized by a wide variety of perspectives, by different ministries, by different political standpoints and by different interests. Third, EU legislation is also examined by a directly elected and full-time parliament that is not in hoc to any government majority.

All in all, the idea that Europe represents a threat to our liberties looks just like another Eurosceptic red herring. If anything, it is the contrary that is true!

No doubt you will have noticed the media attention given to David Cameron’s assertions that UKIP members are “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” on a London radio show. I couldn’t agree more, but in light of this comment it is only fair to raise concern about a blossoming friendship between the parties.

I happened to have a meeting in a restaurant, the night before last, where the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, was dining with UKIP colleagues and Tory MEPs Chris Heaton-Harris and Roger Helmer.

If indeed David Cameron is genuine in his claims of “compassionate Conservativism”, and thus disagreeing emphatically with UKIP policies, why are his MEPs working so closely with them?

Last Thursday I was in Prague where I had been invited to give the concluding speech at a day long conference on the 'Future of Europe' attended by journalists, academics and parliamentarians as well as members of the general public.

The quality of the debate was high. But there will be one lasting impression on my mind: a speech by a German Socialist politician, Martin Schulz, who gave an overview of 20th century history in Europe.

A history lecture, by a German, in the Czech Republic, on the lessons to learnt from 20th century history is not self evident. The fact that nobody batted an eyelid and he got a strong ovation is a measure of how far we have come in Europe!

Martin's line was that we should draw the lessons from some major turning points in European history.

The end of the First World War saw the dissolution of the Austrian/Hungarian empire creating several new states, chaos in Germany and Russia and the dissolution of the Ottoman empire also creating several new states. At the same time the economic situation was dire. Tensions were high.

Broadly there were two kinds of political reaction: Those who took the simplistic ultra-nationalist line of protectionism, rivalry and conflict with neighbouring countries, "ourselves first and too bad for everyone else" attitudes, and others who took an internationalist outlook, tried to build the League of Nations, argued against economic protectionism and sought ways to co-operate across frontiers for mutual benefit.

Sadly, the inter-war period saw the triumph of the former group, causing and so on - was the spiral of events that eventually led to World War two.

Fortunately, this mistake was not repeated after the Second World War, nor (except in the Balkans) after the fall of communism in 1989.

Yet now he detected a revival in some countries of this ultra-nationalist approach. If left unchallenged, it could bring untold damage to our continent.

I see that the "UKIPwatch" website claims that UKIP's parliamentary group are being investigated for allegedly mis-using taxpayers' money. UKIPwatch reports that the co-leaders of the IND/DEM Group, UKIP's Nigel Farage MEP and veteren Danish eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde MEP, are currently being investigated by the legal service of the Court of Auditors for diverting European Parliament money and staff resources, intended for their Group's parliamentary work, to a news agency that claims to be independent, namely "EUobserver.com - a website for the latest EU news". UKIPwatch reports that both Bonde and Farage are facing financial liabilities should this investigation reveal that cross subsidies have breached EU financial rules.

It also turns out that Lisbeth Kirk, the director of EUobserver.com is married to Jens Bonde MEP.

I have spoken to Jens-Peter Bonde and he tells me that there is no investigation and that all their co-operation with EUObserver has been duly authorized by the parliamentary authorities. I also know that claims of malpractice are easily made and frequently not true - indeed, some of the Members of the IND/DEM group specialise in making lurid allegations about the EU - so I'd better give Mr Bonde the benefit of the doubt.

I myself always found EU observer to be quite a useful source of information, but even if there is no financial impropriety, the revelation that they are closely linked to the most anti-EU political group does make one wonder about some of the slant they put on some stories.