I read a lot of newspapers. Staying in touch with the UK and particularly Yorkshire and the Humber is an important part of my job. Every MEP worth their salt does the same.

You put up with the fact that many papers are right leaning and you even get used to reading the outrageous Euromyths conjured from the darkest recesses of a journalist’s imagination.

But sometimes, not often, but sometimes you read an article that is so dispiriting you despair.

The cause for my ire today is an unsavoury column by Bill Carmichael that tells us of his travails in getting a passport for his children.

He writes: “Naturally the passport office rejected our application… You have to laugh. Is this the same country where any terrorist, rapist, child abuser, or killer who has jumped off the back of a lorry five minutes ago is immediately offered a national insurance number, a council house and benefits beyond the dreams of avarice?”

The reason his application was rejected, he admits, was because the photos he provided were signed by a neighbour rather than a person of standing in the community.

Yet the quote reproduced above is clearly implying that too many passports and national insurances numbers are given out, so why the diatribe when passport officials do their jobs properly?

News reaches me that Newcastle city council have been compelled to remove an EU flag from the town hall. Current rules oblige councils to apply for planning permission before flying the EU flag (and presumably the UN one because it is not a national standard).

The EU flag, which has only come into common use over the past decade, is almost unique in that it is not a national flag but it clearly should not come under advertising regulations. Recognising this situation most citizens have been happy to see the EU flag flutter alongside flags without the formality of securing planning permission. Even the staunchly Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan has been quoted as saying “ I do not have any problem with the flag being flown in principle.”

But not everybody has been so sensible. 24dash.com reveals Stephen Allison, a UKIP councillor in Hartlepool, has been revelling in the decision. If Mr Allison were only to refer to his own party’s website he would find that it clearly states that UKIP promises “freedom from bureaucratic politicians.” It is difficult to see how manipulating loopholes in the law to prevent councils from flying the EU flag can be seen as anything other than bureaucratic.

The government plans to liberalise the rules on flag flying later this year when perhaps the Eurosceptics will be forced to look for some arguments of substance.

I notice that today's Financial Times reports on the European Union's work in standing up to powerful multi-national companies, having fined Microsoft some £350 million and pharmaceutical giant, Roche, a similar amount, deterring them from operating price fixing cartels.

The EU also prevented the merger between GEC and Honeywell which would have created a monopoly situation in Europe and has forced Microsoft to open some of its products to competition.

Does anyone really believe that any of our countries alone would have had the power to stand up to these big multi-nationals? By acting together in Europe we can ensure a more balanced fair market on a level playing field.

Charles Clarke has returned to the news headlines since talking publicly about his dismissal from the cabinet, but on Tuesday night he spoke at a Socialist Group conference in Brussels.

The conference focused on fighting terrorism and how to ensure security without infringing on citizens rights – a common challenge for governments across Europe. In his excellent speech, Charles offered an insight into his immense knowledge on the subject.

He also sensitively covered the importance of better relationships with Muslim communities – a challenge that different European countries have addressed in quite different ways, but where comparing best practice shows that Britain has done far better than most.

On terrorism, there are some common measures that EU countries have agreed to take jointly, such as the European Arrest Warrant that enabled Britain to obtain rapid extradition of the suspected London bomber who escaped to Italy.

Shame that even such patently useful forms of co-operation are lambasted by Eurosceptics as being “too federalist” or an “attempt to get the constitution in by the back door”.

Federalism is often thought of as a dirty word by many Eurosceptics, considered a European idea completely un-British. The reason right-wing Conservatives want out of the EPP is because of its federalist principles, while for UKIP federalism is one of many reasons we should leave the EU all together.

Yet federalism is a concept that originates in Britain. British colonists were responsible for setting up the US federal system. Britain also ensured many of its former colonies adopted a federal structure, such as Australia, India, Nigeria and Canada. Following the second world war Britain was also influential in encouraging a decentralized federal system in Germany.

The founder of the European Federalist movement, Altiero Spinelli, was inspired by a pre-war British group called Federal Union who aimed to combat the spread of totalitarianism by pushing democracies to federate.

A report on the BBC website reveals a book called “The Case for Federal Union”, written by a William Curry in 1939, managed to sell 100,000 copies in just six months. They advocated many ideas that are now integral to the EU, including an elected European Parliament.

I attended an academic conference last Saturday at the University of Kent, that traced the British tradition of federalism through its various manifestations over the last 200 years, and a fascinating conference it was, highlighting the role Britain has played in bringing federalism to the world, including of course Europe.

But of course, federalism, as properly defined, does not mean a centralized system, let alone a “superstate”. It simply means having different levels of governance to deal with problems of different scale, each level having a defined remit, a degree of autonomy and its own democratic accountability. The system should be as decentralized as possible, centralized only where necessary. A bit like the current EU, according to the academics present in Canterbury.

I was delighted to see that the new team at the Foreign Office - Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary and Geoff Hoon as European Minister - have actually gone out to start making the case for Europe.

In a speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, Margaret Becket said:

"Many of the challenges which we face as a country can only be met if we work together with our European partners.

"Let me give one classic example – that of the environment, not least of climate change. Many of the substantial environmental improvements we have seen in the UK in recent years - cleaner air, cleaner water - have been driven by regulations agreed at an EU level, and so can be said to be 'due' to the EU.

"Equally, there can be little doubt that climate change is the greatest long-term threat facing the world. It will have a direct impact on the lives of people in this country and across the EU. And it is something on which people across Europe are demanding that their Governments take action.

"But neither the United Kingdom nor any other Member State can hope to succeed through unilateral action. Carbon emissions anywhere affect the climate everywhere. International consensus and international action within and beyond the borders of the EU is an imperative.

"Because, under this Government, the United Kingdom's voice is recognised and respected within Europe, we have been at the forefront of European Union efforts to tackle climate change.

"Those efforts have led to concerted action among the 25 member states to reduce their own carbon emissions. There is still much more to do – but what we have already achieved would have been unthinkable if we needed to rely solely on a network of bilateral agreements.

"And beyond the EU it is as a negotiating group that we have a much stronger voice on the international stage. In 5 years of climate change negotiations culminating in Montreal, I have seen it demonstrated time and time again. That the EU plays a pivotal role in brokering agreement. A role we could not play and an agreement that - e.g. in Montreal – we would not have reached if Europe had not spoken with a single voice."

On the same day at a speech to the Centre for European Reform, Geoff Hoon said:

"Let me give you another example. Mobile phone costs. Over the past 20 years, falling costs in mobile (and fixed) phone bills, including working towards the abolition of the exorbitant mobile 'roaming’ fees have been driven by removing the barriers to competition between telecoms companies across the EU.

"The liberalisation of the telecoms sector was a key UK objective. It underpinned exactly what the creation of the single market was about. But freeing up competition in a highly profitable, but technical area like telecoms meant getting the detail right - and tackling powerful national vested interests - in every country. So we had to agree a major package of detailed measures.

"Some of you will remember the mundane sounding 'electronic communication framework' - to set the essential changes in stone. But those changes were fairly revolutionary in the context of the massive, largely State-run telecoms monopolies of the day. It meant separating the regulation of the industry completely from Government control.

"Tasking the newly-independent regulators with investigating how open every aspect of their national markets were to competition. Using the Commission to push deregulation forward. Reducing the power of existing State-owned providers. It sounds dry and bureaucratic rather than revolutionary, but the effect has been dramatic. On average, business users have been paying 30% less for their calls since 1992. Residential users are paying 16% less in call charges and subscriptions. The cost of a fixed line call has fallen by more than 50% since 1984. And the process of liberalisation is continuing, as the technology develops. "

A new initiative to extend national restrictions on paedophiles across Europe won strong backing from the European Parliament earlier this month.

MEPs voted resoundingly for the proposal of the Belgian government which will mean EU member states will be able to cooperate more effectively to prohibit convicted child sex offenders from working with children.

The previous system only enabled European governments to exchange information about paedophiles without any guarantees that a ban from working with children in one country would be implemented in other member states.

The new laws adopted by the European Parliament earlier this year will change this situation meaning that a ban from working with children in any EU country will automatically disqualify child sex offenders from similar jobs across the EU as a whole. This new measure will prevent paedophiles from circumventing national restrictions by migrating to other EU countries.

This is another excellent example of how the European Union can achieve a safer Europe by working together, rather than as separate countries.

I was interested to see that calling someone “pro-European” is seen as a spiteful act in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election. UKIP’s Nigel Farage has called Tory hopeful Bob Neill “pro-European” on a recent campaign flyer, something which Neill has announced as being “defamatory”.

Surely the crime wasn’t calling Neill “pro-European”, but rather giving him undue credit for having some sense.

Much has been made in the media of the Conservative A-list of wannabe MPs, and in particular, how the list was compiled. Conservative members, the media and the public have been scratching their heads as to why experienced Councillors have been overlooked for the sake of young soap stars.

Perhaps we should be concentrating on the more serious A-listers – in particular the inclusion of the rabidly Eurosceptic Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris and Syed Kamall. As the debate regarding the EPP-ED (see here and here) drags on, it’s fascinating to see Cameron attempting to fill his UK Parliamentary party with those against European integration. I wonder, if he allows all of his Eurosceptic MEPs to become MPs, and sacks all of his pro-european MEPs (as he has threatened to do), who will he have left in the European Parliament? More soap stars?

I suppose it’s all irrelevant to a degree, his grassroot Conservative associations seem to be ignoring the A-list anyway.

On Wednesday, Geoff Hoon (Minister for Europe) gave a speech on the benefits of being in the European Union and by all accounts it was very warmly received.

The lowering of mobile phone calls costs, environmental standards and cheap flights were all given prominence, but Geoff also pointed out that British people tend to take the benefits of being in the EU for granted.

Picking up on this point a Spanish journalist enquired why Britain does not give more credit to the EU for the positive things it does. The journalist pointed out that in Spain, a road built with EU money will be adorned with signs telling everyone who paid for it.

Perhaps if we followed Spain’s lead more of the British public would not take the EU for granted so much. Some things, like the positive effect the EU has on our economy, are difficult to highlight (especially with a sign!) but there are plenty of other opportunities to celebrate the EU. One good example is Britain’s beaches, which have improved drastically in the last 10 years, largely because of the EU. There are also areas in Yorkshire which have received large amounts of EU funding for business support.

If the EU is to become more popular in this country it is important what it does becomes more visible.

Perhaps the most high profile vote in the Strasbourg session this week was on funding for scientific research across Europe.

At first glance this may seem a fairly straight forward issue but it became a deeply contentious one because of the proposal to offer financial backing to stem cell research.

Despite the controversy surrounding research in this field I, and the Labour MEPs as a group, felt it was important to vote in favour of the proposal.

Stem cell research offers hope to people suffering from the likes of Alzheimer’s, cancer and Parkinson’s, all terrible diseases which we must do our utmost to discover new or improved treatments for.

Europe’s tight regulations and strict ethical codes mean that it is better for the research to take place here rather than countries with less stringent rules.

It is also good news for Yorkshire and the Humber. The University of Sheffield’s Centre for Stem Cell Biology has been at the forefront of these experiments, with scientists having already made a breakthrough on IVF treatment.

In general, British universities claim 20 per cent of all research money allocated by the European Union and with Sheffield, Leeds, York, Hull, Bradford and Huddersfield all hosting excellent universities the Parliament’s vote is great news for them too.

Click here for more details on the University of Sheffield's breakthrough on IVF treatment.

Today’s session in Strasbourg was briefly interrupted by UKIP staging a walk out during a vote on a resolution on the future of the EU’s “Period of Reflection” on the Constitutional Treaty, with their departure warmly applauded by MEPs intent on doing some proper parliamentary work.

UKIP’s website claims their MEPs exited when the “Committee on Legal Affairs was presenting to Parliament the Commission's proposal for re-activating the EU Constitution” – wrong on all counts (not a Commission proposal, not presented by the Legal Affairs Committee, and not proposing to “re-activate” the constitution).

It is quite shocking that even after two years in the European Parliament, that UKIP members still don't even have the slightest notion of how Parliament works in general or of the Rules of Procedure in particular - yet are very quick to accuse everyone else of violating the procedures.

They claimed that the Parliament was violating its own procedural Rule 35, which refers to "Commission proposals and other documents of a legislative nature". A resolution addressed to the European Council is obviously neither of these things. If their MEPs are unable to distinguish, one of their Group's many assistants should be able to advise them – but that would assume that they recruit their staff on the basis of competence rather than on the basis of the degree of xenophobia necessary to be a member of their party.

It is not often I will sing the praises of a Tory but I was impressed by Philip Bushill-Matthews’s article in the Birmingham Post about the European Parliament. It gives a simple explanation of some of the jobs an MEP has to do and also covers some of the issues the EU currently faces.

It is pleasing to see such a fair, honest and balanced article coming from a Conservative and is further evidence that it is the outdated, outspoken minority who want the Tories to leave the EPP and not their most effective and articulate European politicians.

Below is a short exert from his article, to read it all click here.

“In the European Parliament we are able to help businesses significantly as well as help people. That is why we are there. You do not get a Common Market by the stroke of a pen. You get it by painstakingly developing common sets of rules by which all agree to abide.

European nation-states operating completely independently will never achieve free trade. Before we joined the EU we were members of EFTA, the so-called European Free Trade Association. It could never deliver free trade, either. That is why we joined the EU, and why we need to be actively and constructively engaged in shaping the
Europe we want despite the many frustrations in the process.

The biggest frustration is that few people know what MEPs do, and even fewer care. The biggest satisfaction is remembering that we were elected to make a difference, and knowing that we can.”

There is no question the British economy is buoyant but there is a growing fashion to suggest other member states of the EU are lagging distantly behind. But this is simply not the case.

The predicted GDP growth of each EU country is expected to be positive in 2006, with Portugal’s 0.9 being the lowest and Estonia’s the highest at 8.9, despite dropping from 9.8 in 2005. Interestingly, many of the EU’s newest member states are predicted to have the highest GDP growth for 2006. Remarkably, 18 countries inside the EU will grow faster than the UK.

Even the so called “basket case” of Germany, which has had high unemployment since reunification, has just resumed its place as the world’s largest exporter (where as Britain still has a large trade deficit).

You can always tell that people are being “liberal with the truth” when their story changes. Over the years I’ve heard Eurosceptic MEPs claim that 90% of new UK laws have been decided at a European level. Sometimes that figure changes to 80% (as Conservative Dan Hannan was quoted the other day), sometimes it’s 75% etc etc – this figure depends, I’m assuming, on which number comes into their head first.

I see that this week, according to Godfrey Bloom, the figure is 65% (which means Hannan – a Tory, is even more wild in his allegations then UKIP!).

Well they're certainly getting warmer. I wonder how long it will take for them to get down to 9% (the actual figure - supplied by the House of Commons library).

It's also worth mentioning that Mr Bloom said, and I quote, "nobody knows anything about it [the European Union] and how it works. That's a great shame".

This is something that I CAN agree with him on wholeheartedly. Does this mean that Bloom will now become part of the solution and not the problem? Will aviatory pigs really be seen over his Selby office? Watch this space!

So, the Tory/EPP saga has finally raised some interest in the national media.

Everyone from the News at Ten to the News of the World have been running the story – I was a touch concerned that Cameron’s shambles of a European policy might be overshadowed by the World Cup, and then nobody would find out the truth behind this mess. Fortunately not.

Here is a link to a fascinating article on the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5053682.stm). I was particularly interested in David Curry’s argument for staying in the EPP, which followed much the same line as we’ve seen before.

“With the best will in the world we would end up with an implausible, erratic and unstable group of parties, many of whose values Conservatives simply do not share. This is particularly important when David Cameron is committed to making the party at home reflect, not confront, contemporary society”, says Curry. Well, indeed.

At home, Cameron is doing well from this persona of being a “thoroughly decent chap”, talking positively about public services, equality and green issues – policy areas hardly entrenced in Tory hearts. Yet in Europe, he is more than happy to show the true nature of the beast – right wing, populist and stuck in the past.

A new group would be “erratic, implausible and unstable”, Curry suggests. No wonder Cameron thinks his party would feel more at home there.

In my post on the 14 December 2006 I listed a whole host of quotes from Tories concerned about leaving the EPP. For another read of them click here.

I read that the Luxembourg Prime Minister has just made a speech saying that we should be "proud of Europe". He points out that we have created the longest ever period of peace in Europe (at least within the EU area), created a common internal market which is now the largest free market in the world, set up (among most of the EU) a common currency, developed a common policy on most environmental matters and overseas development, and so on - and yet all we do is moan. Should we not celebrate this success, he asks?

Any British politician likely to make a similar speech?

I see that the proposed Services Directive, a reform adopted by the European Parliament and recently approved also by the ministers in the EU Council, is estimated to be worth over £5 billion a year to the British economy, according to Britain's Department of Trade and Industry.

Yet the adoption of this directive is only possible because there is qualified majority voting (QMV) rather than unanimity in the Council of Ministers. If there had been unanimity, the proposal would have been whittled away by various governments (France springs to mind) insisting upon deletions and derogations until nothing was left.

Those who oppose the abolition of the veto should remember that the veto is a double-edged sword - if we have one then so does everybody else and there are 24 other countries who can block things we want in the Council. In practice, Britain is rarely out voted at all and the QMV enables us to actually get European decisions that are beneficial.

The figures also put into perspective the budget deal made earlier this year. Whereas there was an outcry at Britain's net contribution to the EU possibly increasing by about €5 billion euros over the next several years, this single measure alone will bring in €5 billion every year. Indeed, the effects of the single market overall are of a far greater magnitude than the figures in the EU budget, which in total represents only one per cent of GDP.

A good example of how the BBC is centred on the Westminster village and avoids giving coverage to MEPs was my treatment yesterday by BBC Newsnight.

The allegations about dubious payments by Arsenal FC to the Belgian Club Beveren was revealed on Newsnight yesterday and I, as a member of the Independent Review of Football (and knowing a thing or two about UEFA rules, Belgian football clubs and such like) had been invited to appear live on Newsnight. I duly cancelled my appearance at a meeting planned that evening as well as a dinner appointment, studied the detailed papers the BBC sent me on the case and prepared to go to their studio.

They were due to call me back to confirm which studio (Leeds or Bradford) I was to go to, but having not heard from them I rang them myself beforehand to check this final detail - only to be told that they had decided instead to take an MP rather than me as an MEP (but had not bothered to tell me about this change)!

So, despite this being a European issue, involving different EU countries, and despite it concerning UEFA rules and also despite me having served on the recent Independent Review of European Football, they preferred to stick to the Westminster village and scrap all the arrangements that they had agreed for me to comment on this matter.

Just two years ago, the BBC had an internal review of its coverage of European Affairs and decided that, although it was not biased for or against the European Union, it was insufficient in its depth and in the scope of its coverage. They pledged to improve their coverage of European matters and to increase their engagement with MEPs from all parties.

It did not take long for the Westminster village mentality to resume control! And, come the next European elections, they will be the first to say that nobody knows who the MEPs are!

Click here for more on Arsenal's links with Beveren.

If it's unpopular, blame it on Europe. This is a tactic being followed by UKIP and Tory Eurosceptics in letter-writing campaigns to newspapers.

Latest example is Graham Booth, UKIP MEP, who writes to the Western Morning News (30 May) to complain about the proportion of British legislation that is adopted by statutory instruments instead of by government bills. Fair point for discussion. However, without explaining any link, he blames this purely internal matter on the European Union. Saying that "It would be difficult to think of a more stupid way of legislating in a democracy - but then the EU model is not aimed at democracies but at totalitarian regimes and subservient populations."

They really will have to start doing better than tagging on a few gratuitous and unfounded insults about the European Union to matters that concern subjects that don't have anything to do with the EU.