It was interesting to see some plaudits coming the European Parliament's way in the press today (31st May 2006).

First, the Financial Times gave an account of the progress of the services directive (“A good day for European democracy”, Quentin Peel) in which it said "quite the most striking is the central role played by the Parliament, rather than the European Commission or Council of Ministers... The Parliament came into its own as a body divided on ideological grounds, rather than purely national lines... It has shown the maturity of the parliament producing such a complex text and one of legally high quality."

Second, The Independent's leading article states that "We also owe a particular depth of gratitude to the European Parliament" for its role in challenging legislation adopted by the Council of Ministers. Of course this refers to Parliament successfully challenging in the court a decision on the retention of personal data of air passengers travelling to the United States.

Whatever the balance of arguments on each particular issue, it does show that the European Parliament plays an ever more crucial role in determining the outcome of the EU policy making. And rightly so - it's called parliamentary democracy.

Perhaps other papers will begin to pay more attention to what happens in the European Parliament and informing their readers about what really happens there.

It’s a real shame to see the Times’ Peter Briffa dismissing the NHS’ anti-smoking campaigns in such a negative way.

Cigarette packets already contain health warnings, an initiative which the Government is currently reviewing – a move which Briffa calls “sinister”.

The review involves the UK Government working with the European Commission to integrate pictoral packet warnings in addition to the current text format.

Unfortunately, if you wave the word “European” under the nose of Mr Briffa you seem to get a negative response regardless of the subject matter or the quality of the proposal. It is truly irresponsible of him to allow his Eurosceptic rantings to come before the health of his readers.

The words he used in his article are below:

“Perhaps it's the privations of childhood that explain the latest sinister twist in the Government's war on tobacco. I say Government, but inevitably the European Commission casts its grubby shadow over proceedings."

Tory MEP Charles Tannock made an astute point in his recent letter to the Telegraph about the problems continued enlargement (to include Croatia and other Balkan states) of the European Union will have.

It is of course to the benefit of the EU that enlargement continues but Tannock points out that the current Treaty of Nice ensures each new Member State is given a Commissioner, a minimum of six MEPs and a certain amount of votes in the Council of Ministers.

Barring detail, he is right. As the EU grows it will become politically weighted to the smaller countries, who will have a disproportionate amount of power in relation to the size of their populations and economies.

Unfortunately Mr Tannock’s solution – a population-based veto – is simply not workable. To bring it in would require each nation’s agreement and it is extremely unlikely the smaller Member States would agree to large ones having a veto but not them.

The “unlamented constitution” Mr Tannock wants abandoned, would attenuate this problem by changing the weighting of votes to make each country’s vote proportional to its population. With this fairer system, it would also increase the use of majority voting in general, limiting the veto to subjects that are really sensitive for Member States.

This is another example of an issue that will not simply disappear with the non-ratification of the constitutional treaty. Good that an opponent of the treaty is beginning to recognise one of the costs of not having it! constitutionwhere the constitution addresses issues

Robert Kilroy-Silk arrived in Brussels amid a blaze of self-publicity but since his election as an MEP for the East Midlands I can’t say I have seen him too many times in the European Parliament.

Since his election in 2004 he has spoken just seven times in the plenary, the last of which was in October 2005. He has not become a member of any committee nor tabled a single motion for resolution.

Intrigued by his whereabouts I visited his website, where it announces “This website will be updated with the work Robert Kilroy-Silk does”. The most recent update I can find is November 2004.

I was also interested to click on the link to the "Contact Me" section, especially when the link led to a page that simply read "error - failed". Quite.

The Independent Review of European Football, on which I sat, presented its findings to Tony Blair yesterday but it is already having to fight off some ludicrous claims from the right-wing press.

The Sunday Telegraph published an article practically accusing the European Union of attempting a coup on football, claiming Brussels would “sieze” control of the game and “direct” it through the European Commission.

As euromyths go this one is rivalling the Sun’s “EU bans barmaids’ cleavage” for absurdity.

I have appeared on Five Live to counter the Sunday Telegraph’s article and written to several newspapers, but now, perhaps predictably, the Sun has joined in saying "English football taken over by barmpots of Brussels".

A common misapprehension appears to be that, despite having independent in its title, the Independent Review is the work of the EU. The Independent Review was set up by governments under Britain’s Presidency of the EU and is backed by UEFA. However, out of the 13 people who sat on it there were just two MEPs, including myself. Others were academics, finance professionals, civil servants and judges in the world Court of Arbitration in Sport - all with a high level of expertise in the field.

It was created to evaluate the state of the game and with its findings, make reccomendations to UEFA, leagues, the EU and national authorities, but it has no power over them.

The bulk of the recommendations are directed at the footballing authorities. Some address governments and some are directed at the EU, mainly to request it to interpret its existing laws in a way that recognises the specific needs of sport and leaves sporting authorities maximum leeway. Where EU legislation is suggested, it is mainly to allow derogations from existing EU law.

The vast majority of clubs, fans and football authorities hold concerns for the game, with the concentration of wealth and success in the hands of just a few clubs being a major worry.

The financial management of clubs is also an issue of major importance. The huge debts incurred by the likes of Leeds and Borussia Dortmund (from chasing a Champions League place) and the implosion of ITV Digital all demonstrate just how close football has been to financial disaster.

Many of the Independent Review’s recommendations centre around these issues. Several of them amount to spreading best pracice from England to other countrties. But, as I have said, whether or not they are implemented will be mainly down to UEFA and the respective football authorities.

Three blatant examples of Eurosceptic lies came across my desk recently. Needless to say, no-one in the media picked up on the fact that they were lies and sadly many people will have taken them at face value.

First was an article by John Blundell in "The Business" who rants about European legislation "imposed on us by the Commission in Brussels. There was no Parliamentary scrutiny. There was no consultation. There was no discussion........." Either this man is painfully ill informed and cannot even be bothered to check basic facts before putting pen to paper, or he is deliberately deceptive. As I never cease having to point out, the European Commission does not adopt legislation: it proposes it to the elected European Parliament and the elected governments of the member states in the EU Council. They decide on it, and rarely adopt it without changes. There is always parliamentary scrutiny, both by the European Parliament and Westminster. Far from there being "no discussion" the examples he quotes are all discussed ad nauseum.

The second example is from a letter-writer to the Yorkshire Post who claims, in similar vein to Mr Blundell, that "MEPs are not allowed to vote to change any Commission decision". Same answer as above, but the prevalence of this false allegation in so many recent letters makes me think that it is a deliberate policy line of the europhobic organisations to ply this particular myth, sure in the knowledge that too few people understand the workings of the EU to be able to answer
them. And as Hitler advocated, tell a lie often enough and people will
believe it.

Third example was Thomas Wise, a UKIP MEP, who in the Parliament this week blamed the EU for changes to planning laws in English villages so that "we are now witnessing the erosion of the traditional communities and destruction of our landscape"! He goes on "you might ask who is responsible for this. Have a guess: the regional assemblies accountable directly to Brussels"!

Now, quite what the regional assembly may or may not said to influence local planning in his region, I don't know. But one thing I am quite sure of: regional assemblies are not "accountable directly to Brussels". How could they be? They are composed of elected local Councillors and other stakeholders in the region concerned. "Brussels", whoever that is, appoints no one to them. They have been established in the UK by UK authorities with a remit determined by the UK. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union.

Yet this has not stopped anti-European campaigners repeating their allegations that these regions have been created by the European Union. The flimsy evidence they cite for this is that the European Parliamentary constituencies established by the House of Commons follow the same regional boundaries. Wow! So do Government Offices of various kinds. So do many private sector companies. This does not mean the EU created them. The EU has no jurisdiction on how member states organise themselves internally. It simply recognises whatever internal regions member states may or may not have.

The Eurosceptics here are trying to link Europe in peoples' minds with something they consider to be unpopular, namely regional assemblies. This is the same tactic that they have followed in trying to blame the EU for metrication, which is similarly not caused by the European Union. I hope readers and newspaper editors are not gullible enough to fall for it!

I have to admit I am becoming sceptical about one aspect of Europe. But before Godfrey Bloom corners me in a Brussels lift waving UKIP membership forms at me shouting, “I told you so, I told you so!” I should stress that my cynicism is strictly reserved for the Eurovision Song Contest.

While its history is hardly a glittering one I am sure the standard has declined to the point where the most original gimmick wins the contest rather than the best song. Hence Finland’s monsters claiming victory.

I am well-known for my attention to detail and even while watching Terry Wogan introduce scantily-clad Croatian singers I can’t take my politician’s hat off. So while many of the performers were mediocre, I found the voting utterly fascinating.

As ever, national affinities feature prominently: Cyprus always gives maximum points to Greece, for instance, and the Nordic countries seem to like each other. Germany gives top points to Turkey, thanks to the couple of million votes from the Turks living in Germany. But there were also some unexpected results that go counter to supposed national likes and dislikes: Turkey giving 10 points to Armenia, for instance, and Serbia giving top score to Croatia.

One of the most satisfying results of this week’s Strasbourg session is the decision to crack down on misleading food labels.

Food companies can currently make claims on their labels which lack any real scientific basis and profess to be far healthier than they really are. For instance, a bag of crisps can be emblazoned with “low in salt” but still contain unhealthy levels of fat.

Now, under the new legislation passed by the European Parliament, food will have to meet certain criteria before it can make a claim such as “low in fat”. Food that is unhealthy in any aspect will not be able to brand itself as a healthy option, even if it does have low levels of one nutrient. Food manufacturers will also have to prove any health claims they make about their products.

With the Yorkshire Evening Post reporting that one in every eight children in Leeds is obese it is clear something needs to be done to combat this problem.

More truthful food labels may only play a small part in creating a healthier society but it is a step in the right direction. Now that manufacturers will be forced to print only facts on their labels consumers can at least make an informed decision about a product.

Sometime ago I published a pamphlet entitled “25 things you didn’t know when you voted UKIP“ highlighting the extensive links between UKIP and the BNP, especially their interchangable membership (and, for that matter, leadership).

At the time of publication, the UKIP were up-in-arms. I suspect they will be distinctly quiet when I refer to my suspicions regarding their activities in the recent local elections.

Looking at the candidates list for each ward in each council in the region, I can only find one example of the BNP standing in the same ward as UKIP. Indeed, when I look at elections in other English regions, examples of BNP and UKIP going head-to-head are rare.

Indeed, it was particularly fascinating to see just how few candidates UKIP fielded. This undoubtedly allowed the BNP to pick up the far right vote without competition.

Could it possibly be that UKIP and the BNP shook hands over a deal? No matter how they package their policies, they are both on the far-right and it would clearly be in each other's interest not to split the far-right vote.

It makes me wonder what UKIP were getting in return for their {suspected} generosity. Could it possibly be a clear run in the European elections in 2009? Only time will tell…

I hear Belfast International Airport is to be renamed after George Best, following the trend set originally by JFK (New York) and continued by other airports like John Lennon (Liverpool) and Robin Hood (Doncaster).

As a regular user of Leeds-Bradford I have been wondering if they too will follow suit, and if they do what it will be called?

Leeds legend John Charles would be the obvious choice if you were to name it after a sportsman but I can’t imagine many Bradford fans would be happy with this. Could I one day really fly into the Dean Windass International Airport?

There is one internationally renown name that falls neatly between Leeds and Bradford, and right on the airport’s doorstep. Guiseley paid host to the very first, and now a very famous, chip shop owned by Harry Ramsden. Surely not?

Accession to the European Union should not be a mere formality.

If any country could join irrespective of whether they meet basic standards as regards democracy, the rule of law, the functioning of the state, of their economy, and so on, we could quickly find ourselves on a downward slope into chaos.

It is absolutely right, therefore, that the European Parliament has today reaffirmed that Bulgaria and Romania must meet tough targets before they can join in 2007.

If the Parliament had given their respective applications a straight "No", there would have been no incentive for them to reform. If we'd have offered them a "Yes" without imposing any conditions, there would still be no incentive to improve. These conditions are varied, but amongst the most important is to root out the corruption which has plagued their judicial systems for too long.

If these improvements are made then I have no doubt that they will play an important role in the democratic processes of the EU.

Making a success of the enlargement of the European Union helps ensure stability, security and continued economic prosperity for our continent, but without the "tough love" enforced on candidate countries, we will never truly drive out low standards of human rights, law enforcement or corruption. EU enlargement can help drive these reforms, and also, when completed, give us the scale to compete economically with the USA, China and India.

Along with hundreds of other MEPs I am in Strasbourg this week and the current session has coincided with a welcome drive to have just one site for the European Parliament, in Brussels.

The use of both Brussels and Strasbourg has long been a contentious issue and the expense of this dual base has given Eurosceptics plenty of ammunition for their attacks against the EU.

It is the nation governments, not the European Parliament, which decides on the seats of the EU institution and this convoluted system is the result of a last-ditch compromise at the Edinburgh Summit in 1992, chaired by John Major.

It was an expensive mistake and it is essential that it is rectified as soon as possible. The current situation is not only costly but inconvenient and impacts on the efficiency of the EU.

I have recently signed an online petition which is campaigning for one seat (in Brussels) for the European Parliament and I urge all of you to do the same.

It intends to collect a million signatures and is an opportunity to have your say on this issue.

You can register and find out more at www.oneseat.eu

This will hopefully add to the pressure. But besides maximum pressure, we need to offer France a way out: after all, thanks to John Major, it has a veto on changing the situation.

That is why I have suggested a quid pro quo: Parliament to Brussels and the European Council (summit) meetings to Strasbourg. This would be quite logical: the summit is supposed to take a strategic view and would benefit from taking a certain distance from Brussels, whereas the Parliament should be on the scene where the day-to-day work goes on. Swopping the two would also give just as much prestige to Strasbourg, which is important for France and might help persuade it to do a deal.

Click here to see my motion for resolution.

There have been interesting debates in both the Times and the Yorkshire Post about the comparative roles the European Union and NATO have played in helping peace prosper in the most of Europe over the last 60 years.

The difference between the two was very well surmised by a James Rodgers in the Times who said that NATO kept a “negative peace” while the EU has built a “positive peace”.

When the Treaty of Rome was set out in 1951 peace, along with social and economic prosperity, was one of its major objectives.

In the space of 60 years the EU has helped countries previously at war form excellent relationships and work closely together on a wide variety of issues.

Rather than simply work to avoid potential external aggression, like NATO, the EU has sought to ensure peace within its borders through profound economic co-operation, including a single market, and through encouraging exchanges of all kinds among citizens.

This contrasts with NATO, which, despite achieving its main goal of dissuading external aggression, failed to keep peace between its own members (the conflict between Turkey and Greece) and alllowed Portugal to be a member when it was a dictatorship.

There is no doubt that both have played a role, but that of the EU has been far more profound than that of NATO.

With the World Cup around the corner it was nice to see world leaders gathering for a multinational kickabout ahead of the upcoming EU Summit. The match, played between various EU Prime Ministers (plus the Peruvian President) and EU Commissioners, was a lively affair which managed to raised 100,000 Euros for charity.

There may have been a distinct lack of Boris Johnson moments (see the now famous rugby tackle here) but there was plenty of action nontheless. Fourteen goals and not a single metatarsal injury - now there is a rarity!

See the full match report here.

Last night I attended the AGM of Labour Movement for Europe in the House of Commons, followed by a debate on the future of Europe hosted jointly between the LME and the Compass group.

Since LME's relaunch before Christmas, regional branches have been developing quickly in all corners of England, as well as a branch in Scotland. LME members are already finding ways of getting stuck in to debates about Europe, both within the Labour Party as well as in the wider community. If you would like to find out more about the LME's work, then take a look at www.lme.org.uk.

As Chair of LME's European Parliamentary group, I know exactly what role Labour MEPs should be playing. We should all be constantly getting the facts out about Europe and ensuring that the pro-European agenda remains a fundamental part of Labour policy.

I was delighted that Geoff Hoon, the new Minister of State for Europe, was able to attend the LME AGM. As a former MEP, he is ideally placed to oversee UK involvement within the European Union. He stated that LME could play an extremely important role in establishing Labour's European policy, and I'm determined to ensure it does.

As the PES spokesman on Constitutional Affairs it is heartening to see Irish Premier Bertie Aherne make clear his enthusiasm for the new European Union Constitution.

Speaking in Dublin today, he said: "The Constitution will make it more effective, more democratic, more open and more easily understood.

"There is nothing automatic about the Europe we have built for ourselves over the last generation. There is nothing inevitable about the union's future. It falls to us now to make choices about our future. We should not underestimate the human potential to make the wrong choices."

His determination to fully engage the citizens of Ireland about Europe is something this country could do a lot worse than to follow.

It is also another excellent example of the disporportionate amount of media coverage given to the two countries (France and the Netherlands) who rejected the Constitution compared to those countries that are strongly in favour of it or are likely to be. For instance, I didn't see much coverage of Estonia ratifying it on Tuesday, making a total of fifteen so far.

Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative MEPs, has claimed that Conservatives "are a pro-European party" (Radio Humberside "Breakfast" interview).

I take it that he will now crack down on his MEPs when they spread anti-EU Euromyths!

How nice that the Huddersfield and District branch of the European Movement invited me on their barge cruise on the Leeds to Liverpool canal at Skipton on Saturday. They used the quiz from my website as a competition, with the winning couple getting a near-perfect score. To see how well you can do click here.

The all-party European Movement branch is led by John Murray and, despite the financial difficulties of the European Movement centrally, still maintains an active presence in the West Yorkshire region.

It’s been a fascinating 24 hours.

The Labour Party has suffered losses across the country but I am delighted that Labour support across Yorkshire has remained strong.

Given the national coverage of the local election results, allow me to contrast the quite different regional results in Yorkshire:

Seats (gains & losses)
•Lab net gain of 10 seats across region.
•Lib Dem net loss of seven (underline loss)
•Cons net loss of five (underline loss)
•BNP net gain of only one
•Greens net gain of one


Share of Vote
•Increase in Labour share of vote across region (2004 30% /2006 31.1%)
•Lib Dem share of vote has declined (2004 26.2% /2006 24.6%)
•Con share of vote up by 8% overall (mainly in Craven and Harrogate)
•Lab net gains in Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Doncaster, Barnsley
and Rotherham

BNP
•Stood 106 candidates in the region (82 in West Yorkshire)
•Gained 4, lost 3 (held 1)
•Won none in South, East or North Yorkshire, nor in Wakefield
•Their gains were from us (Dewsbury East), the Lib Dems (Heckmondwike),the Independents (Morley South) and the Tories (Queensbury in Bradford)
•Their losses were to us (Town in Calderdale and Wibsey in Bradford) and the Tories (Worth Valley in Bradford)
•They increased their overall share of vote from 6.6% to 7.3%

So at least in Yorkshire, the picture is quite good for Labour. I’d like to pay tribute to all the candidates and activists across the region who have worked so hard for their local communities. It is of real credit to Labour activists that, despite some turbulent times, we had a net gain of 10 seats as well as increasing our share of the vote across the region.

In this age of high media it is only to be expected that national issues should affect the local vote. I have no doubt that some extremely competent, hard-working Labour Councillors have lost their positions due to the national issues.

Concerning the cabinet re-shuffle, I’d like to specifically welcome Geoff Hoon’s appointment to the position of Minister of State for Europe. As a former MEP, Geoff is very well placed to work on developing the UK’s role in the European Union.

I believe that appointment is a step towards having a Europe Minister separate from the Foreign Office. EU matters are much more concerned with domestic policy than with foreign policy, and it is not always sensible for them to be co-ordinated by the foreign office.

It is rewarding to see that the enlargement of the European Union is already paying dividends for new member states as well as our own country.

Two years since eight east European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, joined the EU the European Commission has released a report which details the economic benefits expansion has brought.

Britain’s decision to open its labour market to these new states was met with predictable tabloid scare stories promising waves of immigration but of course this has not been the case.

Instead we, along with Ireland and Sweden – the only other countries to lift labour restrictions – have reaped the benefits and have enjoyed a far stronger employment record than the countries yet to welcome workers from the east.

Many of the workers that have arrived in this country have been equipped with the skills to fill roles in which we have a shortage, an increase in tradesmen such as plumbers has proved particularly popular.

Encouraged by the success of the past two years Greece, Finland, Portugal and Spain have followed in our footsteps and will now drop their restrictions on workers from the east.

Germany, France, Italy and Austria remain reluctant to open up their labour markets but the commission’s report will hopefully begin convincing them of the positive aspects of doing so.

It was also pleasing to see that an EU success story was reported in our press. The Financial Times’ leader was particularly glowing in its coverage of the commission’s report while the Times stressed the importance of all EU nations accepting workers from the new member states.

There will no doubt be some readers out there who like a drink or two, there may even be some who have woken up cursing the activities of the night before, wondering just what exactly it was that left them in such a state.

Well, the obvious answer is too much alcohol but sometimes it is the other ingredients that can cause a headache. Soon, thanks to the European Union, drinkers will be able to discover exactly waht goes into their beer and wine.

The Telegraph reported this week that: “The Government is backing European Union proposals to force drinks companies to reveal hidden chemicals used in beer and wine.

“Commonly used chemicals in cheap beer can include betaglucanase, used to speed up brewing and propylene glycol alginate, added to help maintain a beer's head, even after months on a shelf”.

As the President of the British Beer Club in the European Parliament I applaud this news, which again shows the EU’s commitment to helping consumers make informed choices on products they wish to buy.

It is also a move which should help benefit smaller British brewers whose traditional methods typically include less chemicals than mass-market beers and lagers.

Bottoms up!

I have just received the publication "The Work of the House of Lords" which gives an interesting overview of its activities.

It also contains figures on the cost of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, in total and per taxpayer. From it, I calculate the following costs per citizen:

 European Parliament £1.40 per citizen
 House of Lords £1.56 per citizen
 House of Commons £5.57 per citizen

Even allowing for a margin of error, it is clear that the European Parliament (despite the burden of interpretation and the obligation imposed on it to meet in two places) costs citizens far less than the national parliament, not least because its cost, is, of course, spread over far more citizens.