With blatant irresponsibility, the BBC website gives prominence to a trip to Romania by their European editor, Mark Mardell with, of all people, the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage.

Giving such prominence to the leader of a fringe party with not a single seat in the House of Commons might in itself be questionable, but to do so and swallow his arguments lock stock and barrel, without even the basic checks, is inexcusable.

The thrust of Farage's argument is that, although Romania is due to join the EU next month, they plainly have no intention to play by the rules. Mark Mardell falls for this argument, reporting that "The first Romanian butcher Mr Farage talks to, enthusiastically cleaving pork chops on top of what looks like a large tree stump, is unaware that any hygiene standards will change when his country joins the European Union on New Year's Day."

Yet, even a cursory reading of Romania's accession agreement reveals that Romania is not due to apply EU phyto-sanitary standards for another two years. And surely the BBC should know not to accept as gospel stories about the EU coming from UKIP, a party whose very existence is founded on stirring up fears and telling tall stories about Europe.

Mark Mardell's account has a "comments" section where people are invited to place their views on his trip. I tried myself to make this very point, but the BBC moderator did not see fit to post my comment up. After all, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story!

Every year there are thousands of fires, caused by cigarettes left smouldering or thrown away without being extinguished, often causing fatalities. Yet it is now technologically possible to make cigarettes that put themselves out if they are left smouldering - a self-extinguishing cigarette! A law to make this compulsory in Britain would be quite useful, but its effect would be lessened by the fact that many cigarettes are brought in from abroad, notably from other European countries. So a Europe-wide law to this effect would be highly beneficial, wouldn't it?

Well, yes, and indeed, one is being considered. Yet has this received any media coverage whatsoever? All I have seen so far is one solitary article in the Independent on Sunday. The rest of the media have obviously chosen not to associate a good news story with Europe.

Yes, it's that time of year again: the annual setting of the fishing quotas. And it is shaping up to follow the usual pattern: scientific advice is that over-fishing has led to dwindling stocks and that drastic cuts (even, some say, a complete moratorium on cod fishing) should be introduced. The European Commission then puts forward a tough proposal (though not quite as tough as the scientists would like), which is then watered down by national fishing ministers in the EU Council. The result will be that, next year, lo and behold, they find that this year's cuts were insufficient, stocks are still dwindling and the whole cycle starts again.

It is right, of course, to agree a common policy on this. A unilateral effort by Britain alone to save stocks by cutting fishing quotas would be pointless if our neighbouring countries were not doing likewise. Fish have the unfortunate habit of swimming from one country's waters to another, so common action is essential.

Arguably, then, we would get a more sensible policy if powers were handed to the European Commission to decide a common line. Instead, we have interminable haggling in the Council of Ministers, where each minister agrees with the principle cutting quotas, but wants some exceptions for his country. Inevitably, they all end up agreeing with each other's exceptions and derogations, thereby undermining the policy as a whole.

The Finnish Prime Minister today reported back to the European Parliament on Friday's European Council summit. This European Council was neither historic nor punctuated by spectacular disagreements. Yes, even Summit meetings can be boring!

The Finnish Prime Minister, Vanhanen (not to be confused with Dan Hannan, Tory Eurosceptic!) mentioned his regrets that the European Council did not agree to switch from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) on the issue of co-operation on fighting crime - a proposal which was blocked, among others, by Germany and Britain. He said if you want effective decision-taking in the EU, then it was necessary to have QMV. To have 27 vetoes round the table and still expect to emerge with a sensible policy is obviously difficult. Indeed, a good example had just been given a few days before, when Poland alone vetoed a decision which Britain was rather keen on, namely establishing a system whereby prisoners can be transferred to their own countries to serve their sentences. As Britain has a relatively large number of foreign prisoners, it is in our interest to get them out of our overcrowded jails and let them serve their sentences at home (and at their home countries expense). Yet because of the veto system, Poland was able to block something that every other country agreed to.

Vanhanen was interesting in another sense - the evolution of Finland's position. Historically, Finland was a deeply Eurosceptic country, keeping out of the European Union and even the Council of Europe for many years. When it eventually joined in the mid 1990s it was initially cautious. Yet now, it is an enthusiastic participant in the European Union, has joined the euro (within which its economic performance is even better than Britain's), has joined the Schengen area of passport free travel within Europe and supports more majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Last week it also ratified the European Constitution.

Perhaps we should send some of Britain's Eurosceptics to Finland?

Congratualtions to Clare Burke, of Bradford Grammar School, who won this year’s British Council’s competition “What the EU has done for me”.

The competition is in its second year and Clare’s excellent essay means Yorkshire once again has a winner, after Simon Quarrell from Notre Dame High School, Sheffield claimed one of the prizes last year.

Along with three other winners from the UK, and three from Finland, Clare’s prize was an all expenses paid trip to this week's EU summit as a young journalist.

You can read Clare’s essay, along with the other winners of the competition on the British Council’s website here.

Am in Brussels at the end of the European Council (Summit) meeting. Do various radio and television interviews.

However, I also pop in, out of interest, to the briefing given by the Prime Minister's spokesman to the British press. This is a curious affair. In the room are British journalists present at the Summit meeting and down the line are the lobby correspondents in London. The Prime Minister's spokesman takes questions alternately from those in the room in Brussels and those down the line in London. Every question put by those in Brussels relates to the subject of the briefing, namely what is happening at the summit meeting on issues such as Turkey's accession to the EU, the future of the Constitutional Treaty, European energy policy and so on. All the questions coming down the line from London are to do with domestic politics and bear no relation whatsoever with the subject of the briefing. And so on, back and forth like ping pong.

I can also see clearly which stories will be in tomorrow's newspapers - and it wont be the European ones. So much for helping public understanding of what actually happens in Brussels.

The Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) directive was today approved by the European Parliament. REACH has been described as being one of the EU’s most important pieces of legislation for 20 years and will prevent diseases caused by dangerous chemicals, saving thousands of lives a year as well as millions of pounds of health costs. The adoption of this legislation is a big step forward for the protection of people and the environment.

The REACH regulation makes producers and importers responsible for analysing their chemicals and proving either that they are safe or that their use is necessary and strictly controlled. Dangerous chemicals will not be authorised in circumstances where safer alternatives exist.

An independent European Chemicals Agency will be established in Helsinki to oversee the way firms assess chemicals for safety, while all dangerous products will be independently examined under conditions that should stimulate the development of safer alternatives to the most dangerous substances.

It could be argued that a final text that leaves some environmentalists saying they hoped the law would go further than it did and some industry groups saying it went too far, cannot be too far wide of the mark.

There is a case to say that a compromise such as this is not perfect. However, a common set of rules on this important matter is better than a patchwork of perfect (but divergent) rules in some countries, half measures in others and no rules at all elsewhere - in what is supposed to be a common market with common rules. That would have given less protection at greater cost. This agreement also shows how useful the EU can be by sharing the burden of funding, testing and research. This is great news for everyone in Europe.

The Sun has needlessly got its knickers in a twist over the Working Time Directive by claiming paramedics would have to finish their breaks before answering emergency calls. And who is to blame for this? Well the “barmy EU”. Obviously.

Of course anyone with any sense will realise this is patently quite ridiculous but the journalist responsible, Emma Morton, had few qualms about the truth and liberally dipped into the Sun’s big book of how to construct a Eurosceptic scare story to produce this shocker.

Even the most cursory reading of the working time directive would have revealed to Ms Morton that in the case of ambulance service workers and fire and civil protection services "derogations (ie exemptions) ....shall be permitted". In other words, ambulance crews are exempted out of the break provisions of the working time directive.

Still, the Sun has never let the facts prevent it from bashing the EU and Ms Morton slavishly follows the paper’s line with what appears no recourse to research.

Interestingly, exemptions to obligatory break provisions are also allowed for press journalists - and judging by the inaccuracies and distortions in Ms Morton's "story", perhaps she is due a lengthy break.


Addendum 16 December:

Although I wrote to the Sun pointing out their factual error, they did not print my letter, but instead printed another one yesterday from a James Cullen, saying how ludicrous these rules are and that they could mean the difference between life and death. He would be right, of course, if the rules actually said that - but the Sun is clearly not going to let its readers know the truth!

I am apparently "hot"! No, it’s not hoards of admirers desperate to learn more about comitology who have proclaimed this but the Open Europe blog.

Out of the 78 British MEPs I apparently rank a heady fourth in terms of media exposure, behind Tory rebel Roger Helmer, Green party national spokesperson Caroline Lucas and Lib Dem leader Graham Watson.

It was no surprise to see Helmer top of the chart, as he features daily in the letters page of each of his local papers, with the furore over his losing the Tory whip ensuring the right-wing broadsheets gave him plenty of coverage throughout the year.

Likewise, you would expect to see Lucas riding high when she is the national spokesperson for the Greens at a time when the environment is one of the key issues in British, European and world politics.

And Graham Watson has the whole press office of the pan-European group Alliance of Lberals & Democrats in Europe behind him as their leader.

But me? As the Open Europe blog itself admits, its methodology is not exactly fullproof but it is certainly better than coming last! The part of their calculation based on google hits (nearly a quarter of a million) even puts me first out of all UK MEPs - possibly helped by my website, or my newly revovated, expanding and informative website, as I should say.

Cameron's attempt to face two ways on Europe were spectacularly revealed by his trip to Brussels.

On the one hand, to pander to the Eurosceptic right of his party, he feeds a line to the sceptic newspapers in which he lambasts the EU. On the other, he tries to reassure mainstream opinion by teling other papers that he believes in a 'strong Europe'.

Just look at the contradictory messsages fed to different newspapers, according to their owner's position on Europe:

In the Financial Times, Cameron "fought to shrug off his party’s reputation for hostility towards Europe as he mounted an all-out charm offensive in Brussels. Mr Cameron lavished praise on the European Commission and said he fully shared its drive to tackle climate change, cut global poverty, reduce red tape and improve Europe’s competitiveness. Having secured election as leader of the opposition Conservatives exactly a year ago adopting a Eurosceptic tone, his new approach reflects a dawning sense in the British political establishment that Brussels is moving in its direction. He endorsed the “Europe of results” approach of José Manuel Barroso, the liberal-minded European Commission president."

The FT further reveals that, during his closed-door meeting with his Tory MEPs, he barely mentioned his notorious pledge to pull them out of the moderate EPP Group in the European Parliament. The FT reports that he could abandon it at a later date. "The moment to have done it was straight away. This is a defeat for the right"

Similarly, to Guardian reders, Cameron promises that the "Tories will engage with Europe". The Guardian relates that "On his first visit to Brussels as Tory leader, Mr Cameron abandoned the hostility of his predecessors as he pledged to join forces with Brussels to tackle climate change and world poverty" Cameron is quoted as saying: "One of the things that makes me optimistic is the agenda of this [European] commission does seem to be very positive in terms of deregulation, in terms of making sure that Europe is more competitive and [tackles] climate change".

But in the Sun, he tells readers that the EU is a "disaster'. The Sun reports that "he slammed the EU's 'culture of hopelessness' and branded farm subsidies an 'economic and humanitarian disaster'. He told his MEPs "We are a new generation. We have no time for the culture of hopelessness that has plagued the EU"

To Mail readers, perhaps surprisingly, he took the middle ground, venturing that he wanted to make the Union a 'shining symbol of progress'. The Mail reports that "his overall assessment of Britain's place in Europe was positive, risking angering some of his more Eurosceptic MPs. 'It's because we want to see a future for the EU and believe in a strong Europe that we want to make the EU confront its failings' he said"

Cameron's first visit to Brussels as party leader was long delayed. Only when staying away became an embarrassement did he finally come. But, far from being an exercise in statesmanship, his attempts to please conflicting parts of his party back home has simply revealed his hypocrisy on Europe. Chameleon indeed!

Am at the Congress of the Party of European Socialists in Porto - an event that will no doubt be largely ignored in the British media (unless there is a tabloid photographer trying to catch people out at the post-conference reception!)

Among the speeches, I particularly enjoyed the contrasting styles of Segolene Royal and John Prescott. Sego was a model of French elegence, saying not very much but so very smoothly. John's style and unique way with words is well known, but accentuated by the fact that he had to curtail a 10 minute speech into 5 (always a challenge for the interpreters) and, in the middle, actually lost a tooth! His speech was well applauded (though not the standing ovation Sego got). It dwelt on climate change - an area where Britain is actually leading Europe into stronger common commitments to cut emmissions.

The conference gathers some 1000 socialists from across Europe (and beyond - Howard Dean was there from America) including about 30 from the British section, namely the Labour party. Labour is respected rather than popular, but it is interesting to see how widespread "New" Labour ideas have become, displayed not least in the speech of the young Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates.

Curiously, the town is full of Brits in the form of footballl supporters there to see their team play FC Porto in the Champions League. I doubt they've enjoyed the trip: torrential rain, a goalless draw, and their team is ...Arsenal. Poor devils!

It seems as though the negotiations with Turkey on its application to join the EU may not suffer the feared "train crash" after all, following Turkey's offer to open one port and one airport to traffic from Cyprus.

Under the Ankara protocol defining the conditions for Turkey's accession, Turkey must have open trade arrangements with the EU's new members, which it had refused to do as regards Cyprus, as part of its position regarding the still unresolved division of that country. Its change of position could mark a turning point.

All this will provide food for thought when EU foreign ministers discuss the matter on Monday - especially when we consider that just a week ago, the Commission recommended freezing eight of the thirty-five chapters in the accession negotiations.

There are a multitude of reasons why Turkey can play an immensely positive role in tackling many strategic challenges that Europe faces: insecure energy supplies; seemingly intractable problems in the middle east; rising extremism trying to drive Muslims and non-Muslims apart; increasing global competition from Asia; the desire for Europe to play a more active role beyond its borders; and both at those borders and within them, the need to tackle drugs, organised crime and illegal migration.

If the summit of EU heads of state on 14-15 December fails to get Turkey's accession talks back on track, there will be a danger that, at some point in 2007, Turkey will turn its back on the prospect of EU membership. To misquote Groucho Marx, they will not want to belong to a club where too few people want to have them as members.

As frustrating (and predictable!) as an England batting collapse is the Express and Mail’s predilection for publishing at face value any old garbage sent out in a press release by Europhobic Tories.

Considering these papers would probably print “Brussels bureaucrats eat babies” given the slightest chance, it came as no surprise to see them indulge Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn by running his claims that the EU intends to force thousands of people to retake their driving tests.

This is of course utter rubbish.

The draft directive on EU driving licences provides for Member States to keep their own rules for testing drivers. There is no requirement for people to be retake their test every 10 years, only for them to update the picture on their licence once a decade (as is already a requirement in Britain now for the new plastic cards). There is a proposal that drivers with certain medical conditions (such as serious neurological diseases and some angina sufferers) should be tested every 10 years for their suitability to drive, which is something quite different from retaking their test.

Bradbourn, the Tory transport spokesman, said: "The EU is trying to dictate to Member States what they need to do in terms of driving tests and licences."

More nonsense - and he knows it.

Legislation that is actually wanted by every country - and has been approved by the EU Council of Ministers with ministers from every Member State - hardly amounts to "dictation"!

And why do countries want it? Because it will replace over 150 different types of driving licences across Europe with a streamlined set of.... just one.! Because it will make forgeries more difficult. Because it will stop drivers banned in their country from getting a new license in another. Because it will raise standards among those who drive on our roads across Europe.

As with so much Eurosceptic myth making, the story is warped to demonise the EU for what is merely a common sense proposal.

While I was looking at this on the Daily Mail’s website (I must make clear I don’t buy the thing!) I stumbled over a story from 30th September, with the headline “Lives at risk as driving test fraud hits ‘terrifying’ new levels". So you might think the Mail would welcome measures to combat driving licence fraud - but, no, their obsession with attacking anything to do with Europe outweighs their own assessment on the issue.

And, as to Phil Bradbourn MEP, I first met him years ago when he was active in European youth and student organisations. He seemed to be an enthusiastic pro-European. Now, he prefers to play that down and pander to the Eurosceptics in his party. I suppose he expects this to help save his skin when re-selection of Conservative candidates comes up. Will it help his conscience?

Today Finland will become the 18th Member State of the EU to ratify the costitutional treaty.

Of course it is concrete results on economic growth, energy supplies, the environment and so on that matter to people more than institutional tinkering. The problem arises when the machinery blocks or splutters, thereby failing to deliver the desired results.

The EU's machinery has not yet been adapted to having nearly 30 Member States. The constitutional treaty was intended to do that. It has now been ratified by a large majority of the Member States. They remain attached to salvaging as many as possible of the reforms that it contains.

Like it or not, next June's European summit is scheduled to discuss this question and to find a way forward on institutional reform. It is in Britain's interest to support changes such as streamlining the size of the European Commission, re-weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers better to reflect the size of each country, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, and many other of the useful reforms contained in the constitutional treaty.

How this could be done is still an open question (for an analysis of the options click here) but it is not a debate Britain can avoid and we should therefore approach it, not reluctantly, but as an opprtunity to be seized.

The Tories continue to display how divided they are over their leader Dave Cameron's stance on the environment.

On the one hand, Caroline Jackson MEP, one of the few Conservative MEPs to be considered on the moderate wing of the party, has complained that Cameron's promises have proved to be "all talk and no action at the moment".

On the other hand, unreconstructed Europhobe Roger Helmer MEP accused his leader of indulging in a "green gesture that will do far more harm than good" by calling for a strong substitution principle as part of the EU's REACH proposals on dangerous chemicals.

David Cameron based his leadership campaign last year around pledges to put the environment at the heart of policy making (to please his moderates) and to withdraw the Conservative MEPs from the European People's Party (to please the Eurosceptic right). One year into the job and he has reneged on one promise, (when he found out that leaving the EPP would see the Tories either sitting alone or in partnership with the Polish Law and Justice Party, which opposes gay pride marches, and a Dutch conservative Calvinist party, which bans women from representing it in parliament), and paid mere lip-service to the other.

Perhaps Mr Cameron should heed the warning of pollster Frank Luntz - if he wants to make the Conservative party credible, he needs to be a "leader not a brand".

More on the Tories, I'm afraid.

I see that the pro-European wing of the Conservative party won a clean sweep of all the top positions in the (contested) election of their leader and officers of their MEP group in the European Parliament.

Bad news for David Cameron's plans to remove them from the mainstream Christian Democrat Group in the EP, which lunatic scheme most of his MEPs opposed.

Good news for the Tory party as a whole, showing a return to common sense on Europe?

Don't count on it - their dedicated Europe-haters are already complaining and scheming to unseat pro-european MEPs in their reselection ahead of the next European elections. As their choice of candidates is done, not by postal vote of all their members, but at an open meeting which few can attend, it is usually a matter of organisation and who can bus in the most supporters. The ultra-Eurosceptics are dedicated, organised and very well financed. They are already planning their move.

The comments on Iain Dale's post about Kirkhope's re-election illustrate, on a small scale admittedly, some of the depth of feeling against pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party. View them by clicking here