Eurosceptics have long followed the policy of Goebbels who said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. One particularly insidious lie that they have been repeating since the 1970s is a fabricated quote from Jean Monnet to the effect that:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation."

Anyone with a passing acquaintance of Monnet's work would immediately be suspicious of such a quote. I have asked the Jean Monnet foundation in Switzerland whether there is any record of Jean Monnet saying anything of the sort, and they confirm that he didn't - this was an invention first made up in a British newspaper in the 1970s.

On the other hand, they have sent me a real speech by Jean Monnet, delivered on the 28th March 1953 to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, in which he said precisely the opposite -

"Our Community will only develop well if all the measures that it takes are made public, explained publicly not only to the peoples of our Community but also to those who do not belong to it"

[The French original - "Notre Communauté ne se développera bien que si toutes les mesures qu'elle prend sont rendues publiques, expliquées publiquement, non suelement aux peuples de notre Communauté, mais aux peoples qui n'en font pas partie."]

Good letter in last Saturday's Telegraph from a certain Alan Pavelin on the proposed EU constitution:

"I would point out that the treaty was negotiated by the elected governments of the (then)25 member states; that 18 countries (either through their elected parliaments or by referendum) have accepted it and only two have rejected it; and that, of the countries that held referendums, the total of yes votes exceeded the total of no votes. By all means argue against the treaty because you don't like its provisions (which include, for the first time, a provision allowing any member state to leave the EU)…But please don't argue against the treaty on grounds of democracy, because this flies in the face of the facts."

Good to see the CBI is not following the path that some eurosceptic businessmen are trying to push it down. For the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, it has joined with its counterparts in other European countries to issue a statement to mark the occasion, in which it says:

"The Treaty of Rome laid the foundations for one of the most prosperous and safe regions in the world. Business has always beleived in the European project and has supported it because of the benfits it brings to society as a whole.

Peace, stability, creation of an internal market where persons, services, goods and capital can move freely, political and economic integration, common currency, international standing are some of the benfits of Europe which speak for themselves."

Today's meeting in Madrid of the 18 EU countries that have ratified the constitutional treaty is a useful reminder that this text has been ratified by a two-thirds majority of the EU's Member States. Far from being overwhelmingly rejected, as some commentators continue to claim, it was actually endorsed, not just by every single one of the national governments of EU Member States, but also by a clear majority of voters if you add together the results in all the countries that held referenda.

When eurosceptics trot out their favorite sound-bite "Which part of the word no do you not understand?", the 18 reply "Which part of the word yes do you not understand?" So far, there are two 'noes' , 18 'yeses' and seven who are waiting to see, though some of them have also made it clear that they still suppport the text.

Of course, the EU works by consensus on its basic rule-book, the treaties, and serious work must be done to overcome the divergence of views that has emerged. The reservations and objections expressed by the French and Dutch 'no' votes must be listened to. So must the views of the majority. It is quite legitimate to explore what compromises might be possible and what could get the necessary support - a subject I have written on elsewhere (and which you can read by clicking here.

It is interesting, from time to time, to get a completely different perspective on Europe from the one that tends to prevail in Britain, and where better to go than the newest Member State, Romania?

A well-known Romanian newspaper editor, Dana Spinant, has just penned an article on her country’s accession to the EU and why it meant so much to her fellow compatriots.

It concentrated on the freedoms and stability the EU can guarantee, attributes of he Union many of us in the western half of Europe take for granted. It is perhaps a sign of just how successful the EU has been, that its primary objective, to first create, then maintain and most recently to spread peace, stability and democracy, is rarely celebrated by the older EU members.

Spinant writes: “For Romanians, as for Bulgarians or others who lived behind the Iron Curtain, the chance to read more than one newspaper and the right [even!] to a fair weather forecast, let alone the right to hold a passport and travel abroad, are not to be taken for granted.

“So Romanians still do not find obsolete the arguments that the EU is good because it brought peace and contributes to spreading freedom and democracy. They see the point – since most of them were born in a world where none of those existed.”

In Britain for more than a hundred years, and even during the world wars, we have enjoyed a fairly democratic political system, something which makes us, with the Swedes, almost unique in Europe - and uniquely complacent about it! Dana Spinant points out that it is this stability, which the EU has gone on to foster across the continent that is craved so much by new EU members.

Spinant goes further: “The EU’s role was never meant to be just making Romanians richer. That would be a welcome side effect, but the EU’s primary role should be to provide a solid guarantee against bad governance of Romania by Romanians.

“A rather cynical conclusion would that the more strings there are attached to EU membership, the better for Romanians. Italians’ high enthusiasm for the EU is no different. Ordinary Italians have traditionally seen the Union as a welcome constraint on Rome’s volatile and untrustworthy politics…. Tying the hands of their politicians with EU rules that are good enough to be applied in Germany and Sweden sounds like a very good plan to most Romanians.”

Hmm! One certainly doesn't need to go that far as regards most Member States, including, one hopes, Britain. But Dana's general point remains valid.

She concludes: “The admission of these new EU citizens should lead older members of the Union to revisit their perception that the EU’s initial virtues – consolidating peace and spreading freedoms – are passé. As an earlier generation of Europeans, who remember war, who lost their parents or close family on the front between France and Germany, bows out, younger generations start to question, coldly and pragmatically, the EU’s existence.”

“The EU’s raison d’être is perhaps more fragile now as the generation of those who ‘know why’ the Union is good for them departs the scene. But Europe’s newest citizens still know why.”

Hypocrisy knows no bounds among UKIPs MEPs!

UKIP was, of course, set up to oppose everything the EU does and to object as a matter of principle to the EU having any powers whatsoever. Yet here we have one of its MEPs, Mike Nattrass, calling for the European Union to ban bullfighting in Spain and saying that he will fight for that in the European Parliament!

Perfectly respectable to oppose bullfighting. Perfectly respectable to urge Spain to ban it (as Catalonia has already done) but a bit rich to ask the EU to override Spanish law on this matter (which could only be done by a massive increase in the EU's powers) whilst claiming to be against the EU in the first place!

Today, UNICE, the Europe wide equivalent of the CBI, hosted an event in which it announced a name change to "Businesseurope" - very sensible in that it lets people see exactly what the organisation is about (UNICE produced puzzled inquiries as to which branch of the UN they belonged to!).

Announcing the launch, alongside the new CBI Director General Richard Lambert, was Ernest-Antoine Seillière - the French President of UNICE/ Businesseurope who became well known across Europe when President Chirac walked out during his presentation to the European Council objecting to the fact that he was speaking in English whereas Chirac felt that as a Frenchman he should be speaking in French!

Seillière got his own back today by commending the new name "Businesseurope" as a perfect balance between an English word "Business" and a French word "Europe"!

This blog is one of the top ten European blogs, according to an evaluation co-ordinated by Craig Winniker of the Wall Street Journal and published by E Sharp magazine this month.

In fact, I come in 6th place, three behind Margot Wallstrom's famous blog and just ahead of a eurosceptic blog Eurosoc. Their evaluation of my blog is that "between reading all the fun and frivolous blogs it's worth while checking out something as sober and sincere as MEP Richard Corbett's …… Refreshingly Corbett's is among the least self-promoting of the meagre crop of MEP blogs".

Well, most of the time!

This was a special week in the European Parliament, as we had to elect or re-elect the President, Vice-Presidents and so on, ending (still to come) with chairs of all the parliamentary committees. This happens every two and a half years, neatly splitting the five year term of the Parliament in two halves.

Most positions, including Vice Presidents of Parliament and Committee chairs, are in practice settled in advance of the election by a gentleman's agreement among the different political groups to distribute these positions proportionally among them, according to the size of each Group. This reflects the tradition in a number of national parliaments, but differs from, say, the US Congress where the majority takes all such positions.

The creation of an extreme right Group in the Parliament (just reaching the minimum number required of 12 thanks to Ashley Mote, elected in Britain as UKIP) poses a problem for democratic parties: should the new Group be given their proportional share (which amounts to a couple of deputy Chairs of committees), raising the prospect of, say, Jean Marie Le Pen or Alessandra Mussolini becoming an official office holder of the Parliament? Most of the democratic Groups appear at this stage to agree that they shouldn't.

This would be perfectly within the rules, as such positions are elected and the gentlemen's agreement to support each others' candidates can perfectly well be an agreement among just some Groups (or among all but one). In any case, you cannot require individual MEPs to vote for a fascist (or indeed anyone) as chair of their committee if they don't want to.

Going up in the lift in Strasbourg with Nigel Farage, he tells me that the Labour Party should be delighted with him and the inroads UKIP is making into the Tory party. I concured that even the darkest of clouds (UKIP) can have a silver lining.

Last week's defection of two Tory peers to UKIP, the revelation that nine Tory MPs have signed up to UKIP's 'Better Off Out!' manifesto and the announcement that two huge party donors (Stanley Kalms & Stuart Wheeler) may now throw their support behind UKIP, do indeed seem to be causing Cameron to panic.

He has told the Telegraph that he's the heir to Thatcher and promised to resist any European integration, to opt out from the Social Chapter, Keep the Pound, and oppose any new EU Constitution

So much for what he said in Brussels scarcely a month ago (see here.

But of course, he's caught in a cleft stick. Appear too reasonable on Europe, and lose some of his rabid eurosceptics to UKIP. Appear too eurosceptic, and lose credibility as a serious leader and lose votes to Labour or the Lib Dems.

That's why Cameron hopes Europe will go away as an issue, allowing him to ignore it. Unfortunately for him, the debate on the Constitutional Treaty, with the large majority of European countries having now ratified it and wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, will ensure that European issues will not go away.

And Farage is right to say that, in electoral terms, it is Labour that stands to gain.

The news that the euro has displaced the US dollar as the world's principle currency accounting for 45% of the global market compared with 37% for the dollar, offers yet another illustration of the potential economic gains of British membership of the single currency.

As Europe's share of world trade is greater than that of the US, it was always likely that the euro would replace the dollar as the main denomination for world trade. Nonetheless, when you consider that, as recently as 2002, the euro represented 27% of the global financial pie, compared with 51% for the dollar, it is clear that, after some initial teething problems, the euro is rapidly establishing itself as the world's strongest currency. Certainly, it conclusively rubbishes the notion put about by eurosceptics in the UK that the euro was a 'toilet currency'.

The creation of the single currency in 1999 has enabled the development of a deeper and more liquid financial market, consolidated by a strong, growing eurozone. As Rene Karsenti, President of the Internal Capital Market Association, puts it: "it is the stable interest rates in Europe that have helped and the fact that the euro has strengthened and shown resilience".

From the perspective of the UK, this news again demonstrates why, in the UK's case, staying out means missing out. Firstly, UK companies within the EU have to bear hedging and conversion costs of currency that our German, French, Dutch, Irish etc. competitors don't, leaving the latter with a clear advantage.

The next step for the single currency will be for world commodity prices to be fixed in euros rather than dollars. At present, many of our production costs rise and fall with the value of the dollar. Because of this, British manufacturers are hostages to fluctuations in the American economy that have nothing to do with our suppliers nor our own economy. This advantage that the Americans currently enjoy, of having world commodity prices fixed in their own currency, will be transferred to Europe. It would be nice if the UK were able to take advantage of this.

Having been a political campaigner all my life, I know by now that the far right are always a constant presence, bubbling away just underneath the surface of civilised society, waiting for an opportunity to pop up and spread their malicious politics.

Sad to say, an opportunity has arisen, in part, because of UKIP's breakthrough at the last European election.

The French Front Nationale (including Le Pen), Alessandra Mussolini (definitely her Grandfather’s Granddaughter), the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the Greater Romania Party, and Ashley Mote (elected as UKIP) have joined together to try to form a far-right political group in the European Parliament - the smallest of what will now be 8 party groups. A minimum of 20 members is required to form a Group. As things stand, they look as though they may just reach 20. In other words, it would not have been possible without Mote and UKIP's breakthrough in the last European elections.

UKIP have spent the past few months attempting to convince people that they are not just a one issue party and take an interest in domestic matters. However, in doing this they have not lost the capacity for spreading myth and outrageously distorting the truth.

The latest example is their Yorkshire MEP Godfrey Bloom "uncovering" that 11 schools in York use fingerprint recognition and getting his knickers in a twist that this is indicative of Orwellesque totalitarianism. With characteristic understatement, Godfrey said "it's like 1984", adding that "we really have reached a low when we are fingerprinting children at primary schools". The Daily Express described this as "a scandal" and an attack on civil liberties, while the Daily Star reported the 'story' under the lurid headline "Terror test for 5 year olds". All this conjurs up images of a police state.

The problem is that if Godfrey, the Express or the Daily Star had bothered to check out the facts behind the 'story' they would merely learn that the 11 schools are using electronic fingerprint recognition, instead of membership cards, for their library services. Moreover, all but one of the schools in question had informed parents in advance of implementing the system, while the school in question, Manor CE, introduced the thumbprint recognition scheme on the recommendation of the pupils themselves! Indeed, Manor's head, Brian Crosby, responding to the furore in the York Press, expressed amazement that anybody could be so upset by a school using such a library system, pointing out that it is much easier and quicker for pupils who don't have to worry about always carrying (and possibly losing) library cards and that the school's library system is not connected to any other network.

Mr Crosby adds that this new technology has allowed the school's learning resource centre to be transformed, is popular with students, and has helped them to achieve excellent literacy results, while the education authority in York has sent out a letter to schools supporting the system so long as parental approval is sought.

This is simply a case where modern technology is being used to assist children in their learning rather than a sinister attempt to condition them to hand over their privacy. Bloom's attempt to distort what is good news for schools, parents and pupils is yet another example of his party's breathtaking cynicism.

The recent enlargement of the European Union has seen a re-emergence of the debate on migration, and the effect on our economy. It's a highly emotive issue to many people, but I am pleased that, amidst the usual scaremongering by the right-wing press, there has been some sound reporting of the facts by the more responsible end of the British press.

Two reports I especially wanted to highlight:

The Independent:

"The feared flood of workers from Bulgaria and Romania failed to materialise at Heathrow airport yesterday as citizens of the European Union’s two newest member states appeared to prefer to stay at home. Flights arriving at terminal one from Bucharest yesterday carried visitors from the Indian sub continent and crestfallen representatives of certain newspapers who had been sent to the Romanian capital to chronicle the expected influx, only to find no takers. As one photographer for a red-top newspaper put it: “Complete waste of time. No one wanted to fly. We even offered to help with the fare”.

Of course, this did not deter the red tops who went ahead and printed stories of mass migration anyway.

The second was a speech, reported in the Times, given by leading economist David Blanchflower, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2532521,00.html). Professor Blanchflower highlights how migrant workers have not generally taken jobs from British people, have helped keep the economy stable and that there is no evidence to support suggestions that Eastern European workers are keeping wages artificially low.

Of course, many people will have a view of whether immigration is a good thing or otherwise, and they’re entitled to it, but when one of London’s most respected economists, presenting facts and figures, disagrees with the views of a red top journalist, I know who I think is more credible!

The Royal Institute for Foreign Affairs (Chatham House) has published an interesting paper written by its outgoing director Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, which reviews Tony Blair's record on Foreign and European Affairs.

The paper argues that Labour’s first term, but not so much its second, should be judged as a success. A key factor in this was Blair’s first term ability to demonstrate Britain’s European credentials while forging a close working relationship with President Clinton. By contrast, the second term decision to invade a Iraq was a ‘terrible mistake’.

One of Labour's first acts in government was to sign the Amsterdam Treaty. Prof Bulmer-Thomas cites this as demonstrating that Britain was prepared to play a ‘constructive role in the European Union’ (and, I would add, in reforming it) while simultaneously offering the prospect of Britain joining the single currency. Similarly, he describes the decision in 1998 to incorporate the European Charter of Human Rights (albeit non-EU) into UK law as a positive step in showing that Britain was ‘at the heart of Europe’, and he comments favourably on Blair’s role in the St Malo summit with President Chirac, which put the foundations of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) on the basis of Anglo-French military cooperation.

The intervention alongside the USA in Iraq, just when Britain shied away from joining the Eurozone, turned the tide, with ‘Brussels’ sometimes 'portrayed as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution’.

Although he praises Blair’s empathy with the US, he describes Blair’s ‘failure to try to coordinate a European response’ in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as ‘regrettable’. This, he contends, led to divisions within the EU over policy towards the US and gave the impression that Europe was:

‘Incapable of forming a geo-strategic view, that bilateral relations were the only ones that counted and that the Bush administration could count on British support no matter what policy it adopted’.

The European dimension of Blair’s foreign policy has also been effected by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, which Britain supported, by France and the Netherlands. This, together with the decline in public support for enlargement, the placing on hold of British accession to the euro, and a failure to persuade European leaders to take the ESDP seriously has, he says, put Blair’s European policy on the defensive, with the 2005 British Presidency of the EU Council being ‘essentially.... damage limitation’.

He adds that while Blair can taken credit for the fact that Britain is no longer the European ‘outsider’, its influence is limited while the ‘British public is still uncomfortable in its European skin’.

For the future, Bulmer-Thomas calls for a closer relationship with the rest of Europe, arguing that it is a requirement of British foreign policy and is likely to be urged on Britain by the next US president. He opines that a governing party such as Law and Justice in Poland does not help the US by ‘combining a strong Atlanticist streak with Europhobia’.

Furthermore, he claims that:

‘What US governments want is a European Union that can make a real contribution to the international political and security agenda, and any European government with the diplomatic skills to deliver EU support will be hugely appreciated’.

In the light of this, he says that for Britain to play this role as a power broker with the US, and to be taken seriously by its European partners, it must ‘revisit its opposition to joining both the Schengen agreement and the Eurozone’.

He worries that the most likely candidates to replace Blair are 'strongly Atlanticist’, uncomfortable with a closer relationship with the EU, whereas what Britain needs is less unconditional support for US foreign policy initiatives and better balance of UK foreign policy between Europe and the US.

Phillip Davies has stooped to a new low in his latest ranting, and shame on the Yorkshire Post for continuing to give his rabid views such credence and prominence!

You may have seen yesterday’s “exclusive” story. In line with cubed strawberries, straight bananas and banning church organs, apparently the EU is now “trying to brainwash children in the classroom”

The issue that Davies, Godfrey Bloom and chums have highlighted is that the European Parliament has sent information packs (entitled “The European Parliament – What’s that?”) to teachers, to help them explain its purpose and role. Shock Horror! There is no politics here, just a simple and informative guide on how the European Parliament works, and what its MEPs – from whatever party they come from – can do.

Our schools have citizenship classes to teach young people how the world around them works. They learn about how local Councillors make decisions on their behalf, how MPs make decisions on their behalf, and now how MEPs make decisions on their behalf, as well as how they can get involved in the democratic process. Whatever you think about your Council, the government or the EU, people need to know how they actually work.

Let’s be absolutely clear on this. The exaggerated success of the Eurosceptics comes from their uncanny ability to run campaigns of misinformation. The sole reason why Davies is so upset with this move, is because he knows that education is his enemy. The more people know of the EU, the less they will believe his stories.

For purposes of openness, tomorrow I will put an electronic version of the information pack on to my website so that you can all make up your own minds.

UPDATE : You can now read the information pack for yourselves here.

May I wish readers a Happy New Year!

Today, 1 January, Romania and Bulgaria become full members of the EU, and Slovenia switches to the euro as its national currency. All of the twelve countries who have joined over the last two years (ten from Eastern Europe and two Commonwealth mediterranean countries) intend to join the euro over the next five or six years.

What will 2007 have in store for Europe?

First, a celebration of 50 years since the EEC Treaty was signed in 1957. To mark the occasion, the 27 Heads of government of EU countries intend to issue a declaration on the achievements and purpose of the EU. I hope this emphasises the dynamic nature of the EU, which has evolved over time from the Coal & Steel Community of 1951 (the real first step, the EEC only coming five years later) to the Union we know today through successive treaties, each one agreed by every member state, while it has also grown from six to 27 members through successive enlargements.

Then, more mundane tasks, like developing policies on climate change, cooperation against transnational crime, energy policy, the WTO trade negotiations and so on.

Finally, a return to the issue of the constitutional treaty, which has now been ratified by 18 Member States, but rejected by two. Agreement will be sought in June about what to do about this text, with a large majority wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, but awre that any new text needs the agreement of all 27 countries.

All this will take place under German presidency of the Council of Ministers during the first half of the year and Portuguese presidency in the second half. No easy task, as the "Presidency" has no extra powers, merely the task of chairing one of the institutions and trying to broker fair compromises among 27 governments - some of which (not least the UK and France) will have new leaders.