So, the former footballer and TV presenter Ian Wright backs the European Constitution (despite it no longer being on the table), albeit in a roundabout way when he says in The Sun: "Apart from that, I think signing up to the Constitution would be a great idea".

What is the "apart from that"? Four things the constitution would not have done (and the Reform Treaty certainly doesn’t do). He says "I don't want the EU to dictate our foreign policy (it wouldn’t), I don't want them deciding on how we police our borders and who we let in, (they wouldn’t) I don't want the EU to have the power over our courts so they can decide how long murderers get. (it wouldn’t) And I don't want the Euro" (a totally different issue).

As his fears are all placated, I trust that it is his last comment ("great idea") that applies and that he will be campaigning to resurrect the constitution, or at least, support the Reform Treaty.

Further to what I reported last Wednesday, the Dutch government has ageed with the judicial advice from the Council of State and decided that a referendum is not justified for ratifying the Reform Treaty, which will be ratified by parliament, as in the UK.

The Reform Treat merely amends previous treaties and the modest reforms to the EU institutions it does make have been deemed not significant enough to warrant a national referendum.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende said that "the new treaty gives answers to the worries of the Dutch population", referring to the concerns the Dutch people had over the shelved European Constitution.

Leaping nimbly from Bournemouth to Strasbourg, I had the pleasure last night of being the guest speaker at the dinner of the British Chamber of Commerce, where I was flattered to see that the Conservatives had sent no fewer than 9 MEPs to counter me with the odd heckle and questions from the floor.

"Chatham House rules" preclude me from revealing which ones said what, but it was fun to tease them by referring to the "Alternative Treaty" published by their leader in the EP, Tim Kirkhope MEP and warmly endorsed by William Hague, which retains almost all of the practical changes contained in the Reform Treaty. It was interesting to see how they disagreed among themselves with some of them welcoming specific reforms, such as the longer-term presidency of the European Council or the new provisions for involving national parliaments, while others felt they had to oppose them (at least in public). Tory divisions on Europe remain spectacular, with views ranging from secret support for the Reform Treaty to those who support British withdrawal from the EU.

I was delighted to speak, along with David Miliband, Gary and Mary Creagh (with an impromptu contribution from Neil Kinnock) at a packed LME meeting at Labour Party Conference yesterday.

The thrust of the debate was on how Europe could help achieve environmental targets, fight climate change, amplify the effectiveness of development policy, boost economic growth, help combat trans-national crime and so on. The proposed Reform Treaty was also mentioned, but aroused little controversy, with no-one opposing it or calling for a referendum. The Sun's bus, spouting fumes and causing traffic jams as it drives up and down the road outside the conference centre, and displaying posters predicting the end of the world as we know it if the treaty is approved, has not impressed delegates.

I wonder how much The Sun has spent on its attempt to sabotage the reform of the EU. Double decker advertising hoardings, thousands of leaflets and the first six pages of today's issue, must constitute one of the most blatent attempts ever to bounce a government into following the agenda of a media baron.

It looks like UKIP are in trouble with the law again, although this time they have an opponent who they may think twice about before criticising - the Queen!

For the past few years UKIP have sold souvenir passport covers displaying the royal coat of arms. However, the Lord Chamberlain, representing the royal household on behalf of the Queen, has ordered an end to these sales as the coat of arms is protected under law and cannot be reproduced without permission.

Rather than accept the judgement, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has vowed to appeal, describing the decision as "another step to an integrated Europe" and accusing the Lord Chamberlain of "promoting the EU". I'd be surprised if the Lord Chamberlain has ever been accused of being an EU stooge before!

Following this month’s earlier story concerning the plight of Scarborough’s MV Coronia – the passenger vessel docked due to new UK maritime legislation – I have been made aware of another Yorkshire passenger vessel facing similar problems. Bridlington’s Yorkshire Belle has been told by the MCA that due to new "EU legislation" it is no longer able to make its traditional voyage between Bridlington and Scarborough.

As I revealed last month, these restrictions are not EU laws – they are existing British maritime laws that the MCA now want to enforce with no exceptions. These British regulations mean that vessels such as the MV Coroniaand the Yorkshire Belle can sail no further than 15 miles from their departure point, but the rules contained in the EU directive on maritime safety restrict vessels from sailing no more than 15 miles from the nearest harbour, meaning that should the MCA apply these rules that the British government agreed at European level, both the MV Coronia and the Yorkshire Belle would be able to continue to make their traditional voyages along the Yorkshire coats with no restrictions.

I have already written to the MCA to request they apply the EU rules that will save these two pleasure boat companies from going out of business, and am awaiting their reply.

To show your support for these vessels, and similar vessels around the country facing the same problems, please sign the petition urging the MCA to apply the restrictions contained in the EU directive on maritime safety.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/pleasureboats/

I was interested to see that the Dutch Council of State, the highest judicial authority in the Netherlands, has ruled that the Reform Treaty is sufficiently different from the draft Constitutional Treaty rejected by the Dutch people in June 2005, and does not amend the existing EU treaties as dramatically, so that it will not be necessary to hold a new referendum.

This ruling from the high judicial authority from a country that actually had a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty should give cause for thought to those loudly proclaiming the need for us to have one here on the grounds that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty. Even the Dutch don't think that this is the case.

A good example of how eurosceptic media shamelessly and deliberately distorts stories was inadvertently provided by the Sunday Express. This concerned the so called "European Gendarmerie Force" (EGF). The Sunday Express duly reported that "there were no circumstances in which the EGF could be deployed in Britain" as it is in fact not an EU initiative but "an initiative of five EU Member States. It is not an EU proposal or agency and has been set up outside of EU structures. There is no connection with the European Reform Treaty". So, nothing to do with the EU, "Brussels", Britain or the new treaty, but a cooperation between five states which want to do this among themselves.

However, this accurate description came in the very last paragraph of an article with the headline "fears that Brussels riot squad could soon pound the beat on British streets" and which reported that "Brussels has set up a new EU police force" which is "the first police organisation to come under the direct control of the EU and is seen by some as another step towards the creation of a superstate". It quotes unnamed critics as warning "that the force could eventually patrol the streets of Britain".

It then goes on, totally unabashed, to say that "the best ways to stop these fellows demonstrating their skills on a high street near you is to make sure that people in Britain know what is going on, put pressure on politicians to hold a referendum before ratifying any EU treaty covering justice and home affairs."

Breathtaking hypocrisy!

Two famous Yorkshire food products are closer to being recognised in the same light as champagne and Parma ham.

Defra has approved Yorkshire rhubarb growers’ application for Protected Designation of Origin status while Wensleydale Cheese is due to present its application to the Commission in a couple of weeks barring any last minute objections.

The Yorkshire rhubarb application is already in the hands of the European Commission who have a year to consider the case. Should it be approved then the next stage is six-month period for objections to come in from other rhubarb growers across Europe.

Janet Oldroyd, who is organising the campaign, expects some objections to come in from the Netherlands but the name they have applied to protect - Traditional Indoor
Grown Yorkshire Rhubarb – is hopefully specific enough to avoid too much contention.

Having given the application a brief read the intricacies, attention to detail and sheer effort the growers go to produce their rhubarb is astonishing; even the local wool manufactures have a part to play!

Currently just one Yorkshire product boasts a PDO (Swaledale cheese near Richmond) which is pretty dismal considering the rich culture of food the region boasts but if the rhubarb growers and Wensleydale makers are successful lets hope others will be encouraged to apply for the prestigious status.

It was disappointing to see the TUC conference back calls for a referendum, albeit for opposite reasons to the bulk of the treaty’s opponents, namely that they oppose what they consider to be a British “opt-out” from the Charter of Rights.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was agreed by member states in 2000 and sets out the civil, economic and social rights that define European citizenship. It is a complex issue but essentially Britain’s "opt-out" is a special protocol providing that the charter cannot be used in British courts unless British law itself guarantees the same rights - which is almost always the case anyway.

Contrary to scaremongering by the CBI, article 137 of the treaty of Rome, expressly excludes EU-level legislation with respect to pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose lockouts, which will remain subject to national law, whether the charter is there or not.

Given all of this, it is important for trade unionists to recognise that, even with the UK protocol on the charter, the social dimension of the EU is better off with the Reform treaty than without it. The draft treaty not only makes explicit mention of the social model, it also commits governments to strengthening it and enshrines the principles of full employment and social progress. Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. The treaty also requires the EU, in all policy areas, to take account of "the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health". Similarly, the treaty emphasises that the EU must work to "combat social exclusion and discrimination", and will be legally required to promote social justice, gender equality and solidarity between generations. It contains a new provision protecting public services from inconsiderate application of competition law.

Dissatisfaction about the protocol on the Charter, even if it were justified, is no reason to oppose the Treaty. Indeed, a resolution to campaign against it was defeated.

Delighted to hear the metrication issue is finally dead! For too long the Eurosceptic right had made great play of the alleged EU plans to destroy imperial measures, despite the fact this was never in the pipeline.

I think we can all be grateful to Commissioner Verheugen for finally putting to bed a Euromyth that simply refused to go away.

Commissioner Verheugen said: "Let's get one thing straight from the off.

"Neither the European Commission nor any faceless 'Eurocrat' has or will ever be responsible for banning the great British pint, the mile, and weight measures in pounds and the ounces.

"These imperial measures form part of the traditions that are the very essence of the Britishness that all Europeans know and love.

"We at the Commission have decided the time has come to nail these myths once and for all by setting out in black and white what has always been our view: that Britain should continue to use imperial measures for as long as it likes.

"Much as it may dismay those who have peddled the metric myth for far too long, we have now proposed legislation enshrining Britain's right to retain pints of milk and beer, miles on road signs and dual indications of weights and measures from now until Kingdom come."

So hopefully everyone is now clear that: the pint lives, it was never going to die and that the European Union’s sole purpose is not to destroy British culture.

But what’s this in the Daily Mail? The "EU wants to get rid of the Queen from our passports"? Will Britain ever be safe?

It's nonsense of course and correctly spotted then thoroughly torn apart by none other than ultra-Eurosceptic blog EU Referendum who are fed up with "gullible Eurosceptics" who, "demonstrate only that, after all these years, they have learned nothing, and continue scoring 'own goals' with gay abandon".

And who's on the scoresheet for believing this poorly put together myth? Why, it's Devil's Kitchen who, having been taken in, unleashes a bilious rant which is potty-mouthed even by his standards, until he realises his mistake and backs down here.

Who would have thought it, one of the great Euromyths gone and another fiercely condemned by a leading Eurosceptic. I think I'll celebrate with 568ml of beer.

All this week I will be debating Britain and the EU with Neil O'Brien of Open Europe on the Economist's website.

You can follow the debate by clicking here.

I have also had a column published on the Guardian's Comment Is Free website, which is particularly relevant to this week's TUC conference. You can read it by clicking here.

Eurosceptics who call for Britain to withdraw from the EU often suggest that we would be better off just being a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

I’ve always found this a strange argument because the EEA simply extends the single market to these non-EU countries but as non members they do not have a vote on any of the legislation which sets the rules for that market and which they incorporate into their own law. If they don't like an EU propsal, there is precious little they can do about it.

This is a point that Eurosceptics who constantly fret over Britain’s supposed loss of sovereignty might like to consider.

Furthermore, EEA countries are also required to contribute to the EU budget, with the most recent cost to Norway estimated to be around a billion euros over five year.

Calculating in population terms Britain's contribution in that situation would be about 13 billion euros over five years, but also not getting any back through EU spending in Britain!

So realistically, if Britain did ever leave the EU we would inevitably have to sign trade agreements with the EU (which is, after all, where most of Britain's trade is) and then abide by rules we had no influence over and pay for the privilege!

Alexander Stubb, a Finnish MEP, has spent some of this Strasbourg week producing a video on the proposed new treaty.

He interviews MEPs from across the political and national spectrums, asking them what they think of the new treaty and whether, particularly in the UK, a referendum is necessary.

You can view the video by clicking here.

It was no surprise to see ex-UKIP MEP Ashley Mote jailed after being found guilty of benefit fraud, but his nine-month sentence means that, under UK law, he is able to continue as a Member of the European Parliament.

Mote then, has left us in the ridiculous situation in which he has been found guilty of fraudulently obtaining taxpayers’ money, yet will continue to receive his taxpayers’ funded salary while being incarcerated at the expense of the taxpayer.

I have therefore written to House of Commons authorities, as they are responsible for the payment of MPs and MEPs salaries, asking that Mote’s salary be witheld for the duration of his sentence.

Mote was the ultimate hypocrite, as he frequently made unsubstantiated claims about fraud in the EU, while he himself turned out to be a fraudster.

The Guardian’s diary writer Hugh Muir makes a pertinent point when noting that while Ashley Mote cannot attend his committee (Budgetary Control) one of his neo-fascist colleagues in the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Group can sit in on his behalf!

I’m sure the voters of the south east didn’t envisage that when they voted UKIP three years ago.

At the risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, you couldn’t make it up.

I spoke in Monday's parliamentary debate on the natural disasters that blighted parts of Europe this summer.

Inevitably, the debate tended to focus on the more recent fires in Greece which have left scores dead and large swathes of the country torched - their worst since 1857, apparently - but I was able to ensure that the floods in Yorkshire and other parts of Britain were not neglected.

They are mentioned in the Parliament's resolution too, endorsing the case for EU solidarity aid. Britain has now formally requested such aid, and the general consensus in debate was that the Commission must release the money rapidly.

Last night I went head to head with Graham Stringer on BBC Radio 4, debating the proposed EU treaty.

You can listen to the whole discussion by clicking on the link on the Westminster Hour webpage here.

Another useful link:

John Redwood's latest return from the wilderness won him extensive headlines with his deregulation, red tape-cutting policy proposals. Many people couldn't believe the Conservatives returned to Redwood, though many of his ideas went down well with the right-wing press.

The TUC has produced a paper on what Tory deregulation, including the Working Time Directive, would mean. It's also a useful guide to what the EU's Social Chapter actually is. Click here to read.

Euromyths are not always a media invention – they are sometimes made up by those who have a vested interest in shifting the blame away from themselves. Such is the case with the current controversy over the MV Coronia – the ship that defied the Nazis during World War II to rescue soldiers from Dunkirk, which has now been told it can no longer make the 17 mile journey from Scarborough to Whitby because of “new EU restrictions” limiting the distance a vessel like the MV Coronia can travel to just 15 miles.

Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott has championed the cause, writing a letter to Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, demanding to know “why British laws are being cast aside in favour of an EU directive.” But perhaps Mr McMillan-Scott should have checked his facts first and then he wouldn’t be left with egg on his face.

It turns out that the restrictions preventing the MV Coronia from making its traditional voyage are not EU laws, but in fact UK laws. Not only that, should the UK simply implement the European directive on maritime safety without adding its own restrictions, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA), the organisation tasked with implementing British maritime policy, has deviously suggested that new restrictions placed on passenger vessels have been imposed by the EU because the MCA adopted new EU classifications of vessels in order to apply their existing regulations more stringently than before.

But as well as containing new classifications of vessels, the EU directive also contained new more appropriate restrictions for these classes – but these restrictions have been ignored by the MCA. According to British regulations, the MV Coronia may not travel more than 15 miles from its point of origin, but under the new EU regulations, the MV Coronia may travel within 15 miles of the nearest harbour. This means that should the MCA simply implement the EU maritime safety directive, the MV Coronia would be able to make its traditional voyage with no restrictions.

But Tory MEPs and the anti-EU media don’t care about the facts. All they care about is spreading lies and false fear about the EU. In this case, their desire to criticise the EU has ruined any chance of gaining support for the very thing that would prevent the MV Coronia from going out of business – the rules we jointly agreed with other EU countries.