I see that relations between the pro and anti-European wings of the Tory party have deteriorated to the extent that one side wishes to airbrush the other out of history.

Media coverage of the election of Neil Parrish MEP as Chairman of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee has been accompanied by the comment that this is "the first time that this important Chair has gone to a UK member" (comments by a Conservative MEP in the Western Mail, 27th February).

Yet this very same post was previously held by Sir Henry Plumb MEP (later Lord Plumb), former President of the National Farmers Union and David Curry MEP, later to become a UK Minister for Agriculture. These two were, of course, strongly pro-European. It seems that some of the new generation of Conservative MEPs would prefer that they had never existed.

I was pleased to see the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) which heralds new opportunities for both the European Union and Yorkshire region.

With a budget of 7.5 billion euros (£5billion) to 2013, the Council aims to aid scientific research across Europe to promote excellence and improve the EU’s economic position on the world scale. The ERC will provide opportunities for promising up-coming researchers and anticipates that the quality of scientific research will improve, leading to new products and services.

The announcement of this funding is particularly good news for the Yorkshire region which boasts excellent scientific research units at Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and York universities.

The BBC quote Gill Wells, the head of non-commercial and European research development at the University of Sheffield, who predicts that the ERC grants will be highly competitive while the university has already established an administrative structure to encourage researchers to launch investigative teams.

The ERC is exciting news for the whole of Europe, but especially our region, which should benefit from the development of young research panels and a sharp increase in opportunities for funding.

I came across this excellent article by Ivan Massow this morning. In it Mr Massow describes his conversion on the single currency and calls for the party of which he is a member, the Conservatives, to reconsider their hostility to the euro.

In it he rightly points out that the euro has become the predominant and most stable currency in the world, while the French have not become less French, nor the Spanish less Spanish for having adopted it.

He also explains the economic sense of consumers not having to change money when they travel, commenting that if only half of us visited mainland Europe once a year at an average exchange commission of three percent, this amounts to conversion costs of £5.4billion.

Moreover, the beneficial impact of the single currency on British business must be emphasised. Massow, who is a millionaire businessman himself, asserts "I cannot think of a business that would not benefit if exchange commissions and fluctuating currencies disappeared", pointing out that the euro has rapidly surpassed the dollar in becoming the world's number one choice.

Let us be quite clear that in the case of the UK and the single currency, staying out means missing out.

Well done to Calderdale's newest councillor, Judith Gannon, and everybody who helped Labour hold the Illingworth and Mixenden ward in Thursday's by-election.

With the two other seats in the ward held by the BNP it was imperative Labour held on to the seat which was long held by Tom McElroy, who
sadly died in December.

Judith picked up 1104 votes with the BNP beating the Conservatives and Lib Dems into second, though thankfully the far-right party did concede a swing of fiver percent to Labour.

Hopefully we can keep this momentum going in Halifax and unseat the BNP Councillors come May.

Anyone who has followed my recent investigation into that Jean Monnet quote might be interested to read Jan Marinus Wiersma's blog on cabbages, which turns out to be another example of how the internet has helped propagate and amplify myths.

Cabbages have always been held responsible for creating some unpleasant hot air and as Jan Marinus reveals it is no different on this occasion.

His blog looks into the alleged 26,000-odd words the EU uses in its legislation on cabbages and how this compares to the number of words in, for instance, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer or Pythagoras’s Theorem. With a little research he discovers it is in fact an old yarn, originally cooked up in the United States in 1943, about a trade agreement the country originally had with the Netherlands, but with the help of the internet it has sprang back to life as a fanciful story about European regulation.

Lies about cabbages are certainly not as damaging as the Jean Monnet quote but they, along with the plethora of other white lies about Europe, contribute to the atmosphere of ridicule the right-leaning press is so accomplished at foistering.

An interesting article in Tuesday's Financial Times (20 February) says "European single market rules have inspired global standard-setting in areas such as product safety, the environment, securities and corporate governance. Increasingly the world is looking to Europe and adopts the standards that are set here"

All the more reason for Britain to be part of the Union setting those standards, rather than just having to accept them with no say in the matter, as countries outside the EU do.

Bradford Council yesterday launched a booklet celebrating the city’s achievements with the European Union money it was granted through its Objective 2 status.

Between 2000 and 2006 Bradford received £47million which it spent on 195 different projects, helping to regenerate some of the most deprived parts of the city.

What the Objective 2 team in Bradford has done so well is to identify exactly what the city needs and then help provide it. One example is Bradford Youthbuild Trust, which has used its European grant to redevelop its training centre and now provides young people with comprehensive training in the construction industry and the city with highly skilled youngsters.

There is also the University of Bradford’s Institute of Cancer Therapeutics, that not only researches new techniques and treatments into cancer but also promotes high-technology start-up companies with its excellent facilities, leading to more employment opportunities in the city and attracting new businesses.

It is impossible to do justice to just how much European funding has benefited Bradford but the Telegraph and Argus do a good job and I would also highly recommend getting hold of the booklet, which is called European Impact. If you would like a copy please email my office at richard@richardcorbett.org.uk.

Of course it is not just Bradford which has benefited from the European Regional Development Fund in Yorkshire and the Humber. The communities of Hull, North East Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Kirklees (Objective 2) and South Yorkshire (Objective 1) have also seen just how crucial the ERDF is and how it gives businesses and individuals opportunities to develop, which were previously inaccessible.

As I’m sure many of you know, 2007 is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. To celebrate heads of governments will issue the Berlin Declaration, a text which will contain the Union’s values and aspirations.

I have set up my own 50th anniversary page on my website where I will compile readers’ thoughts and feelings about what should be in the text and what the EU’s ambitions should be over the next 50 years. There is also a dedicated set of links to other websites commemorating the anniversary.

Many thanks to Una O’Dwyer who is the first contributor. If you would like to take part please get in contact by emailing your ideas to richard@richardcorbett.org.uk

Another European institution that is celebrating this year is Erasmus, the student exchange programme which is now in its 20th year and has allowed over half a million young people to study abroad.

It provides students with a wonderful opportunity to expose themselves to a different culture, and new cities and countries. Just as importantly they develop their language skills which, while obviously benefiting them personally, also gives them the ability to work abroad when they graduate, which consequently encourages unity, understanding and integration.

You can read several articles on Erasmus on the Café Babel website, which also reveals the EU’s ambitious plans to expand the programme over the next few years.

Between 2007 and 2012 3.1billion euros has been pledged to Erasmus, who hope to see another million and a half people take the chance to study abroad in this five year period.

I see there is the usual shock horror reaction to the suggestion by the European Commission (the Commission can only propose and not decide) that minimum penalties should be set across all EU countries for certain types of offence against agreed EU rules. In particular, they are suggesting that for environmental crimes of a trans-boundary nature, such as dumping of dangerous waste, minimum agreed punishments should be set. This will stop, for instance, companies facing the same standards across Europe, but different penalties, dumping waste material in countries that merely impose a small fine.

There is indeed little purpose in agreeing Europe-wide standards if member states do not treat the law seriously across Europe. If EU countries agree, for instance, to outlaw the dumping of radioactive materials or dangerous, highly toxic chemicals on waste sites, but one or another country, whilst making it illegal, merely says that the company will have a 100 euro fine, whereas in Britain they would be sent to jail, then a highly unsatisfactory situation emerges.

It is therefore perfectly sensible for the Commission to propose to do something about this - though the decision on whether or not to follow their suggestion remains with the Council of Ministers. That is why it is totally ludicrous for Tim Kirkhope, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament, to claim that "it is a significant transfer of power to the Commission" and that "the decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU".

If he really believes that, then he should never again complain about laxity in other EU member states in living up to the agreements we have reached with them.

I was greatly amused to see the results of last week's council by-election in Croydon.

The Conservatives' campaign slogan for the Bensham Manor ward was "Send a message to Mr Blair!", which the locals promptly did by voting in Labour candidate Alison Butler by over a thousand votes, a swing of 10% to Labour!

You can view all the results here which reveal a couple more interesting issues. The UKIP candidate stood as a UKIP candidate and not as an Independence Party candidate and registered 40 votes; that's just 25 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party. There was also no BNP candidate which will not help UKIP fight the allegations that the parties have a deal not to stand for the same seat.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the People's Choice candidate who was anything but after managing just nine votes.

Interesting to see again (following Mike Nattrass's suggestion that the EU should abolish bull-fighting) to see that another member elected under UKIP's banner is now calling for the adoption of EU measures instead of their repeal. Robert Kilroy-Silk has called for a system whereby health professionals who are banned from working in their own countries be put on a list so that they can be banned by all EU countries.

Sounds reasonable, but again hardly tallies with the usual diatribe against any EU legislation that comes from Kilroy and his ilk.

Open Europe, the eurosceptic think-tank, has re-used the old gimmick of calculating the total volume of EU legislation by pages, pointing out that it would stretch 31.7 miles. This illustrates, they say, that "the growing burden of EU over-regulation is a serious problem for businesses and even voluntary groups".

Sounds fine, but they do not mention that a large proportion of this EU regulation is designed precisely to cut bureaucracy and red-tape for businesses by setting a common EU norm to replace 27 divergent national standards in the EU's single market. In calling for regulations to be repealed, "Open Europe" is rarely specific. For instance, do they want to repeal legislation that allows a company to register a trademark once, to be valid throughout Europe? Without that legislation, companies would have to register their trademarks 27 times over, going through different hoops and bureaucracies in 27 different countries, filling in 27 different forms etc.

No EU legislation can possibly be adopted without the agreement of a very large majority (and often unanimity) of the member states themselves, so the very idea that the EU has "imposed" unwanted and unnecessary legislation on member states is somewhat simplistic. Yet the eurosceptics go on trying to portray the EU as an all-powerful bureaucracy spewing out unwanted legislation that member states have no choice but to accept. Any attempts to counter this myth and to explain how the system actually works are denounced by them as "EU propaganda". Their lies and hypocrisy make you sick.

There is, however, one thing the EU can do - and is now beginning to do - to reduce the number of pages of EU legislation. This relates to when it adopts legislation amending pre-existing EU legislation (and the bulk of single market legislation nowadays is precisely that: an update or review of existing EU law, rather than new EU law). Rather than adopting countless directives amending another directive, it should recast the original directive, keeping a single text rather than a string of them on any one subject.

The Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament is at this very moment preparing a change to the Parliament's Rule of Procedure to facilitate the adoption of consolidated legislation of this kind. At least this will lessen the ability of eurosceptics to exaggerate the volume of legislation that emanates from the European Union.

I had dinner last night with Michel Platini, football legend and the newly elected president of Uefa. He was elected just last week to this post in a hotly fought contest in which he ousted Lennart Johansson, seemingly winning thanks to a pledge to reduce the maximum number of clubs from any given country that can compete in the Champions League.

Other than on this point, his policy line shows continuity with the previous Uefa leadership: concern about the governance of the game, corruption, doping, racism, funny money coming into certain clubs, and the dominance of a ever smaller number of rich clubs in each country – except that he seems willing to pursue the necessary reforms with more vigour.

Much of this requires cooperation from public authorities at national and European level. If Uefa is to oblige leagues to sell TV rights collectively (and redistribute the income) it requires a sympathetic interpretation of competition law. The Uefa rule limiting squad sizes and requiring a certain number of “home-grown” players also requires a sympathetic interpretation of EU employment laws and its principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality. That is where the“Friends of Football” all-party group in the European Parliament can help.

(In this context, it was interesting to see Tory Eurosceptic Heaton-Harris extol the merits of EU legislation – in this case the money laundering directive – as a help to the football authorities.)

All this will help shape the debate on the forthcoming Commission white paper on sport in Europe which follows on from the Independent Review of Football, on which I served, which reported last year. Most of the ideas being evolved will be popular – except with some of the “big clubs” that currently dominate.

Platini’s own suggestion to cut the maximum number of Champions League places per country will not go down well in the Premier League but, as Platini said, if you look at the problems facing football (not least this week with the suspension of all football in Italy), the issue of whether the team coming fourth in England from 2009 onwards qualifies for the Champions League does not exactly seem to be the biggest issue.

So UKIP are going to cut and run from their name and call themselves “Independence Party”. I suppose “UKIP” has built up too many bad connotations. “Independents” sounds better, and perhaps they are intending to claim the several hundred Independent councillors across the country as theirs!

Their leader, Farage, is quoted in the Telegraph saying it is “time to campaign on more than just immigration and withdrawal from the European Union and move to wider themes of national and local independence, deregulation and tax cuts”.

"Local independence"?! For where? Dulwich? Liverpool? Hull? Perhaps the Scottish nationalists are not, after all, the main threat to the unity of the UK!

Cameron still tries to be all things to all men and women when it comes to Europe - not surprising if you tot up the number of Tory defections on this issue in recent years, Europhobes to UKIP and Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats.

Today, Cameron has launched the "Movement for European Reform" (not to be confused with the existing Centre for European Reform). Its and his statements to mark the occasion are a telling sign of his increasing schizophrenia on Europe.

To please the Europhiles, his MER's "New Agenda" starts off saying : "the EU helped to create prosperity and bring our continent together. More recently, the EU has helped to support and nurture new democracies in Europe. Its membership now stands at 27 nation states – this is a fantastic achievement."

But addressing his more Eurosceptic readers in the Sunday Telegraph, he writes that the MER is in fact intended to "make the EU confront its endemic flaws".

His detailed description of the MER then tries to please both. It is high on clichés and even higher on contradictions. He says that "with the welcome enlargement of the EU to include so many countries previously locked out of freedom – there is a new Europe. But, sadly, there is no new EU". No indeed - he opposed the new, reformed EU that all 27 governments agreed on in the constitutional treaty.

He rails against the cost to business of EU regulations, but says "Europe has to show real global leadership by making its emissions trading scheme more robust" - which would itself raise costs, albeit for a good reason. Perhaps he should look at whether the costs of other regulations are justified or not, rather than sounding off with sweeping generalisations. And perhaps he could at least give a passing acknowledgement that EU regulations can also cut costs by eliminating technical barriers to trade and avoiding duplication in national procedures.

He says that the EU is always "demanding more and more power from member states", yet the constitutional treaty was about improving the EU's use of its existing powers rather than increasing them. New powers can anyway only be conferred on the EU by the Member States themselves, and only if they all agree.

On the constitutional treaty, he claims that "When the French and Dutch people rejected it, the EU responded by calling the voters ‘wrong’, and reviving the idea." I'm afraid "the EU" said no such thing - it was the 18 countries that approved it that are saying that their own voters also deserve to be heard and who are calling for a compromise to be found to save at least some of the reforms it contained.

As he claims to want reform, perhaps Cameron should engage in that debate, and specify exactly what he would keep and what he would change in the current treaties and in the constitutional treaty. Does he want, for instance, the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of EU decisions provided for by the constitutional treaty? Does he oppose the changed voting system that would make each country's vote reflect its size (strengthening Britain, by the way)? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to scrap the set of existing treaties and have just a single text? Surely he would agree that it's time to settle these issues about the EU's machinery and move on to the real policy debates, yet he persists in his opposition to the reforms. But what, exactly, does he WANT?

Or, rather, what does he feel he can say, other than vague generalisations, without alienating one wing or the other of his party?

Pursuing the theme of how others see the European Union, it is interesting to note that the special report commissioned by the Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg on why his city is being outperformed by the City of London as an international financial centre, underlines the advantages to the City of London of being inside the European Union. It even singles out the benefits of European Union financial market legislation in creating a single market in financial services. The report says that the market in financial services directive (Mifid) will further improve things for investors and it urges US regulators to catch up with the EU by introducing proper international financial reporting standards.

This doesn't quite tally with the Eurosceptic myth of the City being strangled in red tape!

Following on from yesterday's blog, the pressure on Conservative leader Timothy Kirkhope appears to be increasing. Almost every Tory MEP I bumped into yesterday muttered dire warnings of a vote of no confidence.

If Kirkhope is ousted, his replacement would be the fifth leader of the Tory MEPs in nine years - a record as dismal as the Conservatives in Westminster! More evidence that Cameron's attempt to present the party as unified is merely papering over the cracks!

I was delighted to be re-elected by my colleagues as Socialist Group Co-ordinator (spokesman) on Constitutional affairs yesterday. My old friend (I have known him since I was 20) Jo Leinen was re-elected as President of Parliament's Committee on Constitutional affairs.

But, the surprise of the day was the EPP Group nominating UK Tory leader Tim Kirkhope for their Vice President slot on the Committee. He has not previously even been a member of the committee and in that capacity replaces Dan Hannan, who rarely appeared.

So, why has Kirkhope, as Conservative leader, chosen to switch to this committee and, even, to be its Vice-President? Not, I assume, simply to counter me, as a fellow Yorkshire MEP. As an opponent (now) of the Constitutional Treaty, he may have decided that a higher profile Tory presence on the committee is necessary, with the issue returning to prominence. But he has not always been the most dogmatic opponent of the treaty and seems to accept the need for some of the reforms that it contains. This has caused unease among the arch-Eurosceptics in the Conservative delegation, who remain suspiscious of Kirkhope and are rumoured to be planning to oust him as leader.

Meanwhile, I had some fun showing Kirkhope the letter from David Cameron published in yesterday's Financial Times. It advocated dropping the Constitutional Treaty, but salvaging most of the institutional changes it contains, including a long-term President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister, a streamlined majority voting system in the Council, and so on. Kirkhope looked surprised and shocked - until he spotted, just before I closed my folder, that the David Cameron in question was a professor at a Yale University and not his party leader. Had I closed the folder a few seconds earlier, Kirkhope would no doubt have been rushing out a press release welcoming the new line from his party leader!

Anyway, well done to the FT for setting a cat among the pigeons!