I have written to the Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson after reading his article in the Mail on Sunday which explained why the BBC had decided to give more coverage to UKIP.

He said: “When I joined the BBC as DG, I thought our coverage of Europe was deficient. There was too little - and too much of what there was tended to view Europe through the lens of Westminster politics.

By the stopwatch, Eurosceptics may have had their share of the debate but there was too little curiosity about the different shades of sceptical opinion and too little seriousness given to those who believed that the right thing for the UK to do was to leave the EU altogether.

We've responded by appointing Mark Mardell in the new role of Europe editor, by delivering more consistent coverage of the work of the European institutions and by exploring the views of UKIP and other shades of Eurosceptic opinion more regularly and thoroughly."

This seems utterly bizarre to me and suggests that the BBC’s coverage before Mr Thompson became Director General was biased in favour of Europe, which it clearly wasn’t.

He himself admits that Eurosceptics received as much coverage but does not really explain why he felt the need to give more credence to UKIP, a fringe party who still haven’t got close to winning a seat in the House of Commons, even in a by-election.

I have also enquired if he will balance the BBC’s increased coverage of “shades of Euroscepticism” by covering more shades of pro-European opinions including federalists, neo-federalist, intergovernmentalists, status quo supporters, wideners and deepeners.

I await his response with interest (which I will of course publish on here!).

I was interested, if that is the right expression, to hear UKIP leader Nigel Farage on Radio 5 Live yesterday.

He usually claims that the European Union is responsible for 70% of the UK’s legislation; this time, however, he fancied a change and decided that it was 75%.

Thankfully, a listener put him right asking the following question:

“Mr Farage claims that 75% of our laws are made at European-level, even though his own website puts the figure at 70%. His UKIP colleagues put the figure at anything from 50% to 80%. Isn’t part of UKIPs problem that they can’t keep their stories straight? Incidentally, the House of Commons research department put the actual figure at 9%”.

His response was fascinating. He dismissed the 9% figure by saying that the House of Commons research department can’t be trusted, “that paper was an entire fabrication”. So, is everyone a liar?! He doesn’t trust the European Parliament. He doesn’t trust the UK Parliament. Who exactly does he trust?

His argument to back up his 75% claim was equally as revealing. "Well in Germany, the figure is 80%, so to say 75% is probably quite accurate". Nothing like sound research eh Nigel?!

One European issue currently being considered by the government sounds highly technical, but is none the less causing considerable debate. It is whether the ‘Passarelle’ clause should be used to change EU procedures concerning decisions on law enforcement and criminal matters.

What this means is that the member states can decide (unanimously)to transfer decisions in this field from the specific inter-governmental procedures laid down in the so-called ‘Third Pillar’ of the EU Treaty and switch them to the general decision making procedures of the European Community. If they do so, they have the option of switching to majority voting instead of unanimity, of giving the European Parliament the extra scrutiny powers of the ‘co-decision’ procedure, and enabling judicial review of decisions by the Court of Justice. It could also allow the European Commission to chase up Member States who failed to implement what they have agreed to in the Council of Ministers.

The tabloid headline reaction has been predictable, with screaming headlines alleging that Britain is going to ‘hand-over’ powers in this field to ‘Brussels’, ignoring some basic facts about the matter.

I gave evidence last week on this matter to the House of Commons and the House of Lords scrutiny committees. I drew attention to an excellent report of the House of Lords which is available to read by clicking here. The Lords cite a number of problems with the current procedures, which take up an enormous amount of time, and they conclude ‘that the proposal deserves careful examination’ and ‘caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage’ (paragraph 172). They consider that a gradual transfer from the inter-governmental procedure to the community procedure ‘merits exploration’.

But above all, they put their finger on a crucial point: this is a field in which Britain anyway enjoys the right to opt-into or opt-out of legislation adopted by the European Union. Decisions taken by a qualified majority in which Britain was out voted would not apply to Britain if we didn’t want them to. So, it is other countries’ vetoes (of things that we want) that could be circumvented without Britain needing to accept majority decisions that it would have vetoed.

The Lords report deals with this in its paragraph 178 where it says that ‘as a result, the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the overnment will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer law competence to the European community’.

As to the merits of using Community, rather than ‘third pillar’ procedures, I note that the Law Society considers that ‘the full incorporation of the justice and home affairs pillar into the community structure offers the best guarantee that rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states’ (quoted in Lords report paragraph 119)

The government will this week announce its decision on whether to allow Bulgarians and Romanians the right to seek employment in the UK as of 1 January, the day of their accession to the EU, or whether to postpone the right for a transitional period.

We all know that more people than expected came to Britain when 10 other countries joined the EU two years ago. But in the main, this has been a positive experience. They have filled gaps in our job market, paid far more tax than they have received benefits, and given an extra boost to our economy.

Of course, there have been some problems too. A few struggle with their English which can obviously cause safety problems while large numbers of young men in particular locations can cause difficulties. Although most have not brought families, those that have tend to congregate in the same areas and are inclined to use the same (normally catholic) schools.

Unfortunately there have also been cases of unscrupulous employers who have exploited migrants by pressuring them to accept poor conditions and low wages. But as I have said recently on the blog, this is something the trade unions have been quick to realise. The TUC’s guide to employment rights for migrant workers is particularly useful and is available in several languages. It also puts the traditional workforce and new arrivals on the same side, defending their common rights.

In these circumstances, it would be a pity if the government were to cave in to the tabloid clamour and postpone the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK labour market. Access has proven to bring considerably more benefits than disadvantages. A (relatively) small extension to two more countries won't change that equation.

But above all, the consequences of restricting access should be thought through. It would not stop Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain - they have that right anyway. It would simply stop them taking official employment. The likelihood is that many will take unofficial employment, unregistered, unregulated and unprotected. They will be wide open to abuse and exploitation. They will not contribute taxes. Any media kudos gained in the short term will quickly be lost when the press inevitably exposes illegal workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Far better that they be officially registered. It would minimise the problems and maximise the benefits.

In reality, this is not so much a Home Office matter as one for the DTI, the Dept of Work & Pensions and not to mention the Foreign Office for its EU repercussions. In other words the government must take a collective decision and not be bounced.

The headlines will scream that the the EU's auditors have highlighted irregularities in EU spending for the 12th year running in their annual report.

In fact, as in previous years, the auditors will declare the accounts reliable overall, but criticise the way some funds have been spent on the ground - by the EU's 25 member states rather than the European Commission.

Spending on EU administration is actually expected to get a clean bill of health, with the auditors praising new monitoring systems.

Like all large organisations (for example, the Department of Work & Pensions, which has not had its accounts - for its far larger budget - approved for even longer than the EU), the auditors cannot certify that every single item of expenditure has been in accordance with all the relevant procedures. But what they are talking about is not normally fraud, but mistakes in the paperwork, timing or procedure.

This time, the European Commission is apparently set to try to rebalance the media slant, and even to do the unthinkable: criticise the Court of Auditors for its methods and its presentation.

I gather (from the BBC) that the Commissioner for Administration, Audit and Anti-fraud, Siim Kallas, is expected to respond by saying that the Court of Auditors Report:

* Ignores the fact that money mis-spent one year is normally clawed back the next year. If you lose your wallet, but get it back with the money inside, you do not count it as a loss.

* Considers money lost even when it may have been spent as intended - if say, a grant recipient makes a minor mistake with the paperwork

* Refuses to name which member states are lax in controlling use of EU funds

In 2005, Mr Kallas says, the Commission clawed back 2.17bn euros (£1.45bn) from member states, and wrote off 90million euros (£60million).

It will be interesting to see whether the Commission's efforts result in any better balance in the reporting of this issue!


Background:

A positive verdict from the auditors on the reliability of EU accounts means that all transactions, assets and liabilities have been completely and accurately recorded.

A negative verdict on the regularity and legality of transactions in one area of spending or another means that there is insufficient evidence that funds have been spent in accordance with the rules.

Most of the problems occur with payments made by member states, because 76% of EU payments are delegated to them, but efforts are under way to encourage them to exercise greater care when spending EU funds.

An agreement was reached in April requiring the member states to produce an annual assessment, starting next year, of the way EU spending has been controlled at national level.

Yet more tired anti-EU nonsense is being trotted out by the Centre for Policy Studies, in the Thatcherite thinktank's latest attempt to revive the policies of the 'Iron Lady'.

The chairman of the CPS, Lord Blackwell, has opined that Europe's 'outdated protected regional economic block is in danger of locking us into the slowest growth markets' while the European social market model is 'destroying' Britain's ability to compete. Indeed, the CPS urges the Government to change our relationship with the EU into something resembling that of Switzerland

Far from being a 'protected economic block', the EU is committed to open and fair trade. Indeed, it conducts more trade with the rest of world than does the USA, Canada, Russia and Japan, including accepting, without quotas or tariffs, exports from all of the least developed countries.

Meanwhile, Britons continue to enjoy the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in living memory whilst still benefiting from the fundamental workplace rights laid down in the European Social Chapter.

Some economic destruction!

Sections of the right-wing press have leapt upon the new EU Employment Directive (relating to age discrimination) as (yet another) example of a European Commission 'diktat' with a Sunday Telegraph leading article claiming that the law has 'no democratic mandate at all'.

Before hordes of Eurosceptics start foaming at the mouth, it's worth pointing out that our Westminster government which was, last time I checked, elected, agreed to the directive in November 2000.

Indeed, all EU legislation is issued by the Council, a body which is made up of ministers from democratically elected governments of the EU's member states. The Council works on the basis of creating consensus rather than imposing 'diktats' onto reluctant member states. Its decisions are subject to the extra safeguard of scrutiny by the elected European Parliament and by national parliaments (in our case the Commons and the Lords scrutiny committees).

The Commission has no powers to dictate anything, merely the ability to propose rather than enact legislation.

It is disappointing that the Sunday Telegraph chose to use their editorial to peddle myth and factual inaccuracy.

Previously, on my blog (here and here to be exact) I have mentioned a couple of examples of journalists or newspapers caught in the act of fabricating totally untrue stories intended to make the EU look bad.

The latest paper caught out is the Daily Mail. Not so long ago they pictured a queue outside the British visa office in Sofia, Bulgaria. At the time I can remember thinking that it was a pretty short queue, certainly a lot shorter than anything you would expect to find at the British passport office, or at any pub in the country on a Friday. However, with trademark scaremongering the intrepid Mail journalists managed to whip up a front page story out of it.

Now though, Peter Preston, writing for the Guardian, reveals the picture was taken the day after a UK bank holiday, meaning the office was processing twice as many visas than on an ordinary day. So despite the queue already being pretty small, had the picture represented a normal day there will probably been fewer than ten people applying for a visa, which isn’t really worthy of an inch in a newspaper let alone a front page.

Preston also wonders why we aren’t welcoming Bulgaria and Romania with open arms. After all, less than 20 years ago they remained communist states devoid of democracy. Had someone said in 1986 these staunchly communist states – Romania run by Ceauşescu and Bulgaria a loyal Soviet satellite state – would be embracing democracy, freedom and working together with their western European neighbours it would have been cause for celebration.

As I mentioned in my blog in Lithuania, some times it is easy to forget just what the EU represents in terms of democracy, stability and prosperity to nations that have been less fortunate than the UK.

Paul Sykes has accepted my challenge to a public debate between him and me on the UK’s relationship with the rest of Europe.

This is much needed to re-balance his highly tendacious set of allegations that feature in newspapers across Britain yesterday when he launched his Eurosceptic campaign with adverts in many of the national papers. The Telegraph included a full page ad, with a half page in The Times, and quarter pages in the Mail, Express and Sun. Locally the Yorkshire Post had a full page ad with the Yorkshire Evening Post a half. Whether this is replicated across the country remains to be seen, but in any case it must have cost a fortune.

His advertisements make absurd claims, that I commented on in my blog last Tuesday (October 10). But to try to back them up, he quotes two opinion polls which he himself commissioned and which, unsurprisingly, comes up with results that he hopes will cause people to swallow his arguments.

The poll, conducted for him by YouGov, says that 87 per cent of people want a referendum on the EU’s powers. His full question is “Some people have called for a referendum on whether powers over fishing, farming, rules and regulations, law-making and borders being returned to the British Parliament from the European Union. Would you support or oppose a campaign to hold such a referendum?”

It is a well known feature of polls that a question “Do you think there should be a referendum on X [insert issue of choice]” tend to produce large majorities in favour, which inevitably gives Sykes the result he wants. On top of that, there is plenty of ambiguity in “rules and regulations, law-making and borders” - all rather loose descriptions, left open to interpretation. Of course, the fact that the British Parliament has anyway not relinquished powers over such matters, but simply agreed that Britain should act jointly with neighbouring countries on those aspects where we are interdependent, does not feature in his loaded question. Nor does he specify that there is more than one parliament involved: the European Parliament, (and, come to that, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) exercise scrutiny and rights to approve or not legislation adopted at their level – and it is the British Parliament that has determined which level is appropriate. It is also worth pointing out that 87 per cent of people support calls for a referendum and not the “return of powers”.

The same goes for the second questions in his poll – how much information have you received in the last 12 months from your MP or MEP about the European Union? Ninety five per cent have heard nothing or very little but again we don’t actually learn anyone’s views on Europe.

Sykes's whole campaign, along with the second question, implies that people are not properly informed about the European Union, which is true – but this suggests a lot of the answers to the first question will have been given using only the ambiguous knowledge they have gained from reading the question itself.

The latter question is also, intentionally or not, begging a very different question. If you replaced the “European Union” with almost any other subject you would get the same response. Unfortunately MPs and especially MEPs do have the money to contact each constituent every year – it is simply not in their budget.

I have around five million constituents in Yorkshire and the Humber and as much as I would like to keep all of them individually and directly informed about the European Union, it is simply not possible. I have to hope that the media will give me some unbiased coverage. I certainly cannot pay for a particular standpoint to be given blanket space in the way that Mr Sykes can! According to the Newspaper Marketing Agency, the cost for his ad in the Telegraph alone will have cost £45,000.

This is why I am glad Sykes has agreed to debate the issues with me. There is no way pro-Europeans can compete on a par with Sykes’s campaign financially but I know when I meet him head on I will have facts behind me rather than myth.

As to not hearing from your MEP, if you would like to hear from me four times a year you can sign up to my mailing list for my quarterly report, which will give you regular information on the EU, by emailing richard@richardcorbett.org.uk. You may also find interesting items on my modest website www.richardcorbett.org.uk.

Another interesting story I read in Tribune, and have not seen mentioned in the rest of the national media, is about the arrest of two men from Lancashire found with bomb-making equipment.

Robert Cottage, a former BNP candidate at the last local elections in May, and David Bolus Jackson have both have been charged with possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose.

Raids of their houses uncovered BNP literature, rocket launchers(!), a nuclear biological suit, and incredibly 22 chemical components which could be used for bomb making, thought to be the largest such haul ever discovered in Britain.

The apparent media blackout on the duo’s arrest stands in stark contrast to the unfortunate Iraqi Kurds who were splashed across the front page of a certain tabloid in 2004, accused of a suicide bomb plot to blow up Old Trafford. In fact their only crime was supporting Manchester United with the story a hysterical fabrication. They were never charged and there was never any evidence to suggest they were anything else but football fans.

An interesting insight to our media.

One of the main concerns about the migration of EU Citizens from the eight new eastern European countries is the potential for exploitation by unscrupulous employers, which is why it so good to see the UK ’s unions adapting quickly to deal with this new challenge.

This week’s Tribune reveals that my union, the GMB, has opened a branch in Southampton dedicated to migrant workers, with the city’s Polish community making up the large majority of its members. The initiative intends to help migrants improve their English, understand their rights, and build their confidence and skills. By helping migrant workers understand their rights British workers are also protected from unfair competition

The T&G also led the campaign for gangmaster legislation, which will protect casual workers, when it is introduced later this month.

The TUC have also released a guide to employment rights in Europe which you can read by clicking here (pdf). More information is available, in a variety of languages, on the special migration page of the TUC’s website, which you can access here.

Spending two days in Lithuania this week was a refreshing contrast from Britain. The enthusiasm there for the EU would make British tabloids go beserk.

Lithuanians approved EU membership in a referendum with over 91% voting in favour. It was the first country to ratify the constitutional treaty. It had hoped to be the first eastern European country to join the euro on 1 January 2007, but was pipped to the post by Slovenia. In its national Parliament, a leather bound original copy of its Treaty of Accession to the EU is prominently displayed in a glass case with an array of European flags behind it. (Should I suggest to Jack Straw, as Leader of the House, that the Commons do the same?)

I was there to meet national MPs to discuss what to do about the stalled constitutional reform of the EU, but I was invited to give a lecture while there to academics and MPs. I expected a small group of elderly specialists but found the room full of young people and the event transmitted by video conference to universities across the country, whose panels also put questions to me in the three-hour long session. It was also webstreamed over the internet. Somehow I can’t see the same happening if I gave a talk in Westminster!

Of course, in a town like Vilnius, they appreciate all the more the peace and stability that European integration brings. This town was Russian until 1917, part of Poland until 1940, occupied by Stalin's troops for a year until Hitler invaded, murdering the substantial Jewish community, until the Soviets returned in 1945. It became the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania, and the capital of the newly independent state when the USSR broke up just 15 years ago.

Take something as mundane as street signs: within a single person's lifetime, they have changed from Polish to Russian (in cyrillic alphabet) to German to Russian again and finally to Lithuanian.

We often take the peace and stability aspect of the EU for granted. Yet it was and remains a fundamental motive for the whole project. As the recent Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponnen, said: "What value do you place on even one hour of peace?"

The EU’s planned legislation for a Europe-wide system to test and regulate chemicals (called "REACH") was discussed in committee yesterday, with MEPs in the Environment committee voting in favour of putting a strong version of the law before Parliament in November’s Strasbourg session.

REACH could potentially improve the health, safety and working conditions of virtually every citizen of the EU.

The need for REACH was highlighted in the media twice yesterday. The Daily Mail contained an extended article on two twins suffering from hypospadias, a genital abnormality. The number of children born with the condition has doubled over the last 25 years with experts putting the blame squarely on chemicals used in everyday products.

The Guardian’s Conservation website reveals how a toxin called tributyltin contained in paints is contaminating wildlife and subsequently entering the food chain. By 2008 it will be banned in the European Union.

At last Friday’s Labour Movement for Europe evening, Giampi Alhadeff, the Secretary General of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, spoke of how we should identify problems that the EU can contribute to solving. The EU will get off the back foot if its legislation is seen to be making an obviously positive impact on the lives of its citizens.

REACH is proving Giampi right. The Daily Mail will never be a general advocate of the EU but, however reluctantly, it admits that this legislation will improve the health of Europe, and is therefore a good thing.

The Daily Telegraph has revealed that Yorkshire millionaire Paul Sykes intends to spend £10million on a new Eurosceptic campaign which will be, according to him “an outbreak of truth”.

The “Speak Out” campaign will include a call centre, a website, adverts in national newspapers and a letter to every single household in Britain, with the intention of breaking the “conspiracy of silence” over Europe.

Apart from the disappointment of finding out Mr Sykes isn’t an avid reader of this blog – I’m not known for my reticence to discuss European issues – this is worrying news.

I too, would like the European debate to feature more prominently in this country but a debate is not what Mr Sykes has in mind. As the Telegraph explains, Speak Out accuses the government of surrendering to an “undemocratic and unaccountable” Brussels and reveals that the advertisements will include the following:

“Our MPs have betrayed us. They have given away powers that were not theirs to give. More than half our laws — some people say as much as 80 per cent — originate not in the debating chambers of our elected Parliament but behind closed doors in Brussels."

Despite the considerable wedge Sykes has thrown at this project, he has presumably not budgeted for basic research. If he had the House of Commons library will have told him that only nine percent of UK law originates from the European Union.

And of course, legislation from "Brussels" is in fact adopted by ministers from elected national governments in the Council and elected MEPs in the Parliament, which amounts to a double dose of democratic scrutiny. And not "behind closed doors" - the European Parliament has always met in public (including all its committees, unlike Westminster) and the Council does too now.

Somehow I doubt Mr Sykes will be correcting his advertisements in time for next Monday’s launch of Speak Out. Instead every single household in the country will presumably receive deliberately misleading mail-shots railing against the European Union.

Hardly an outbreak of truth!

If there was one thing we learned from the Conservative Party Conference last week it is that the Tories are still deeply divided over Europe.

My local MP, Conservative Philip Davies, led the anti-EU cheerleading during a packed Better Off Out fringe meeting, a group which exists solely to campaign for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Just a day after Davies had denounced the EU, Hague spelt out Conservative Party policy on Europe in his speech.

He said: “Others condemn the EU in its entirety. But as we champion a new vision for Europe and make great friendships among its newest members, it would be extraordinary for us to turn our backs on them and myopic to advocate withdrawal. I am as convinced as ever that our place is to be in Europe.”

With such a disparate range of views on the EU, and the Conservatives desperate to put on a show of unity, it was no surprise that Cameron remained silent on the issue, though he did win praise from Davies for allowing the sceptics to air their anti-EU rhetoric.

There is also some intrigue behind Nicolas Sarkozy’s appearance – or lack of it – at the conference. Sarkozy, the favourite to become the French presidential candidate for the centre-right, was due to speak in Bournemouth but in the end addressed the conference by video on the big screen.

David Rennie informs us on his blog that many (well-connected) people believe that Cameron told Sarkozy not to mention the EU in his speech and consequently the Frenchman refused to travel to the south coast. Martin Kettle of the Guardian blames Sarkozy’s absence on the Tories’ refusal to work alongside the Gaullists in the EPP – which if true will be some indication as to just how isolated the Tories will be in parliament and Europe in general should they leave the EPP. After all, the Gaullists are not federalists and traditionally support the primacy of national governments in EU deision-taking.

Some claimed that the Conservative Party Conference a success and David Cameron indeed produced a polished speech which, though with no actual policy, embraced some traditional Tory taboos (gay marriage and single parents for instance). However, he steadfastly ignored the one issue the Tories are no closer to resolving: Europe.

It was interesting to see that most of the traditional Tory newspapers did not deem David Cameron’s closing speech to the Conservative Party Conference worthy of the front page.

Indeed the only national paper to dedicate their leading story on the front page to Cameron was the Telegraph, which focused on his insistence that the Tories must abandon their outdated views on gay relationships and single parents. Judging by the staid faces of many of the Tory delegates caught on camera by the BBC, he has plenty of convincing to do.

He also has plenty of convincing to do outside the party. As my colleague Michael Cashman pointed out in a letter to the Guardian: “Despite having voted against nearly every measure on equality for lesbians and gay men in the UK, they still claim themselves to be the all-welcoming, all-inclusive new Tory party.”

This is not forgetting the record of the Tory MEPs who, the vast majority of, have failed to condemn homophobic and xenophobic violence and also abstained from supporting a programme which helped victims of domestic violence.

I imagine most of you will by now at least have heard of, if not seen, “Webcameron”, a series of video blogs from the Conservative Party leader.

As usual with Cameron, image is everything and policy is tucked away somewhere behind the stairs. So while we do get to hear his children shouting in the background and see him do the washing up (including his soon to be popular catchphrase: “Right, now I'm going to wash-up the porridge”), we are still no closer to actual policies.

Still, I will leave it to Marina Hyde of the Guardian to discuss Webcameron further. Read her column here.

One website with video clips I can heartily recommend is the excellent EUX.TV where you can watch an array of news clips, interviews and short programmes to do with current EU issues.

It is an innovative approach and here in the UK in particular, where coverage of the EU can be sparse, it could become a valuable tool in helping to spread a more objective view of Europe, especially as it bypasses the usual Eurosceptic media outlets.

This is not to ignore the rest of the website, which is just as useful. It has comprehensive coverage of EU news in print and includes profiles of various people involved with the EU. There is also a nifty agenda which provides a detailed list of the work the Parliament, Commission and Council will be getting through over the next few months.

Boris Johnson MP, prominent Tory, gives a sickening example of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Eurosceptics in his recent column in the Telegraph. In objecting to the recent legislation requiring the protection of children in cars through booster seats, he complains that:

“It is, of course, an EU directive, which means that elected British politicians have been given neither the means nor the opportunity to contest it – or even to debate it.”

What nonsense! And furthermore, he knows this to be a lie.

Was there no British Minister in the Council meeting when this was adopted? Of course there was, and Britain supported the measure, along with other elected governments.

Are there no British MEPs present in the elected European Parliament? Of course there are, even from Boris Johnson’s own party, who supported the measure.

Was it not discussed in the House of Commons? Of course it was, not least by the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which, on Wednesday 5 July 2006, approved the measure in the form of the Draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, where even the spokesman from Boris Johnson’s own party welcomed the new regulations.

And as to the reasons for the measure, they are not, as Boris Johnson fantasizes, because “a few years ago some lonely and bored European Commission official was persuaded (no doubt by the booster seat industry) that in some circumstances children under 135cm would be safer with booster seats”, but because elected politicians in the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament examined and accepted what experts on road safety were saying.

Seatbelts in cars are designed for adults. Children, being both smaller and lighter, need an adapted form of protection. This measure will save lives and prevent injuries.

Boris says that this may only be one and a half lives saved per year. Even if it is so low, that would mean 15 children saved over the next 10 years – and far more spared from serious injury. Scarcely a case of evil intent by the EU! Yet Boris says he is “shocked by the depth of my own anger”. He describes it as a ”stupid and impertinent law” and says that there is a is a “perfect and justifiable reason for massive civil disobedience”!

I am used to froth and hyperbole from the Eurosceptics, but this ranks right up there with the silliest!