One of the, thus far, little mentioned innovations in the Reform Treaty is the potential effect on CAP reform. The treaty extends the European Parliament's legislative co-decision powers to the field of agricultural legislation. In the EU budgetary procedure too, all EU expenditure will be subject to the approval of both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. At the moment agriculture is the exclusive preserve of the Council of Ministers. As I pointed out in my article on the Compass website, opening up the CAP and agricultural legislation to the Parliament, in which MEPs divide along ideological rather than national lines, will increase the levels of scrutiny, democratic accountability and should drive reform in these areas.

Another measure to increase transparency in agriculture spending is the decision last week by EU Agriculture Ministers to publish a comprehensive list of all CAP recipients, which was detailed on the Financial Times blog. The Commission and Member States will now draw up guidelines on how much information countries will have to provide - for example, the UK produces a very detailed list including the precise amount the Queen receives in farming subsidy (£769,000 for her Sandringham farm in 2003/4), but there is currently nothing to stop others from merely publishing generic information ie "a grain farmer in Picardy".

Small steps perhaps, but making the ways in which the EU spends its budget more visible and detailing how the money is spent is, nonetheless, a significant step towards increasing transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

Amid a fairly quiet weekend for the British media, one event was conspicuous for its failure to attract press coverage - the Pro-Referendum Rally in central London. Even sympathetic newspapers (i.e. most of them) could not bring themselves to talk up a poorly attended flop.

Not even the Sun gave the rally much of a mention, preferring to do a front page splash on another royal family scandal. This may have something to do with concerns that the Sun's circulation has, so I hear, fallen by 160,000 each day it has led with demands for a referendum.

It was interesting to see the speakers list: Nigel Farage, Bob Spink MP (a Tory member of Better Off Out), Roger Helmer MEP, Neil Herron of the so-called Metric Martyrs and Councillor Steve Radford of the “Liberal party” (not the LibDems). In other words, a rag-bag of assorted cranks, all of whom are committed to Britain leaving the EU. Save for Mr Spink, not a single MP attended, although a sizeable contingent from the BNP were present amongst the demonstrators – who numbered a few hundred instead of the hoped-for thousands.

The high hopes of the Eurosceptics that they would be riding on a wave of popular protest seems to have fizzled out in a damp squib. Most people just aren’t screaming for a plebiscite on whether to replace the rotating presidency and reduce the number of commissioners! And perhaps people have realised that most campaigners for a referendum are not interested in the Reform Treaty, they just want Britain to leave the EU.

Interesting point by Peter Preston in today’s Guardian: if UKIP and some Tories got their way and Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, then the "route to the exit is littered with obstacles: four decades' worth of directives to unscramble and replace, funding promised or under way to be reappraised, fishing and agriculture deals to be haggled afresh, trade and immigration understandings to be understood again. This won't be like breaking your tennis racket and storming off court. This has to be a long, deadly serious business"

Not to mention that there would be precious little goodwill from our partners if we were to storm out slamming the door of the house we have helped to build over several decades. Nor could we rely on economic muscle: we represent a smaller percentage of their trade (under 10%) than they do of ours (62%). And once we were out, we would no longer have a voice around the table in making the common rules for the common market - our main export market which our producers have to adapt to anyway.

Seems to be a no-brainer – maybe that explains who is supporting it!



PS I see Mark Mardell has also blogged on this today for the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

The commitment of the Conservative Party leadership (breaking their previous manifesto pledge) to leave the Christian Democrat group (EPP) in the European Parliament and set up a new political group has still not been carried out, as they have failed to find enough allies from the other member states.

The one ally they have found - the Czech Civic Democrats - are now in government in Prague. Having been strongly opposed to the previous constitutional treaty, they now plan to ratify the reform treaty without a referendum. Their leader in the European Parliament, Mr Zahradil, explained this to the European Parliament last week, seeing this as a treaty that "sets Europe on an intergovernmental path" rather than in a federal direction, and is quite different from the constitutional treaty.

Curiously, Conservatives in Britain seem to be keeping quiet about this view of their closest partners in Europe.

It's been a rough couple of weeks for the BBC but despite the fact people often bemoan them for a perceived right-wing, left-wing, Eurosceptic or even Europhile bias, the reality is that the BBC is one of Britain's best exports and one of our most valuable institutions. So much so the French now plan to copy its successful model.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, worries that although the BBC has the same funding as French external broadcasters it is much more successful and told Patrick de Carolis, the boss of French Televisions, that he wanted his four channels to be "more creative and daring", citing the BBC as the model.

He has championed reform of France's public television network to mimic the BBC's structure. The first upshot of this proposed reform is to rationalise the separate external French televisions channels into a single large, BBC-like, corporation. This, he hopes, will raise French Television's world-wide visibility and influence to the level at which the BBC has enjoyed for decades.

We may grumble about the BBC from time to time, but it is pleasing to hear about the world-wide appreciation and envy for the BBC which is so often neglected by its detractors.

Click for more on the Times' website

With customary hypocrisy, the Eurosceptic press today criticised the EU for cutting subsidies that could lead to an increase to the cost of Christmas trees. Apparently, imports of the Danish grown Nordmann fir, which has been the most popular tree in British households since the early 1990s because it retains its needles for longer than other trees, are to drop because a ruling by the European Union to scrap subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy.

About 300,000 Nordmann firs will now be sent to Britain this December compared with the 1.2 million last year.

An interesting story - I hadn't realised that the Telegraph and the Express were in favour of the CAP subsidy! The ingenuity of newspaper editors to shape a story to give the EU a clout never ceases to amaze, but "EU ruins Christmas" is a new one in my book.

Yesterday's Commons debate on the European Council was marked by the pompous and unconstructive Euroscepticism of every Conservative that took part in the debate, with the sole exception of David Curry. David Cameron's speech made absolutely no reference to the future agenda of the EU - in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's presentation of a paper looking at the way that the EU can contribute to economic prosperity, security, job creation and tackling climate change. This paper serves as Britain's agenda for the future of the EU in the 21st century. Indeed, as Gordon put it, "it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change, but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era".

It was interesting to hear Michael Connarty's contribution to the debate. The Conservatives have made much of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee (chaired by Mr Connarty) on the treaty, citing a passage in the report stating that "the new Treaty is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty", conveniently forgetting to include the previous half of the sentence which states that this is only the case for countries that "have not requested derogations or opt-outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty". This is yet another example of the way Eurosceptics use selective quotation to mislead and distort debate on the EU.

Indeed, as Michael Connarty pointed out, Britain does have derogations and opt-outs which mean that, as far as Britain as concerned, the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different from the Constitution.

I was particularly struck by David Winnick's comment that most of the Tory objections to the treaty "amount to little more than xenophobia". It is a sad indictment of the Conservative leadership that, even though they have quietly drafted an "Alternative Treaty" that is very similar to the Reform Treaty, they none the less give free reign to the obsessive Eurosceptics in their party, An example of how they are losing control of their extremist wing is the Early Day Motion tabled by Bill Cash and John Redwood. It calls for the Government to reject the Reform Treaty and for a referendum to be held on it either before or AFTER ratification.

This implies that, in the (albeit unlikely) event of the Tories winning the next election, they would hold a referendum after the treaty entered into force, and campaign for a 'no' vote. If they won it, the other 26 EU countries would almost certainly refuse to agree to re-open the treaty and completely re-write it. Britain would be offered a simple choice - are you in or out of the EU. This, of course, is what Messrs Cash and Redwood know and want. It will certainly be interesting to see which Tories sign this EDM.

At last, the deal has been done and a new treaty reforming the EU has been agreed by all 27 national governments!

Amid all the fuss about what the treaty does and doesn't do, it is perhaps worth noting that it will improve the democratic accountability of the European Union. Under the terms of the treaty, no EU legislation can be adopted without, first,examination by national parliaments, second, approval by the EU Council of Ministers (composed of national ministers from national governments accountable to those national parliaments) and third, approval of the European Parliament (composed of our directly elected MEPs). This is a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. Anyone genuinely worried about accountability should focus on NATO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, the OECD and so on, which lack such accountability.

So, a European Council summit convenes and Britain has a treaty which contains all the things it asked for at the June summit. This time Britain is not going into the meeting with major battles to fight. All of the Government's so-called 'red lines' have been agreed, and Britain keeps its ability to pick and choose whether to opt-in or out on justice and home affairs policy. The treaty discussions are expected to be wrapped up fairly swiftly. If there are any last minute hitches, they will probably be Polish or Italian quibbles. It should be a successful (and low-octane) first summit for Gordon Brown as our Prime Minister.

Of course, this is unlikely to assuage the obsessive Euroscepticism of the Murdoch press, the Telegraph and the Mail. You can expect to read the usual wild-eyed diatribes and baseless scare stories about the contents of the Reform Treaty and how it will lead to a centralised superstate.

However, the reality is that most people are not interested in such shrill little-Englanderism. I gather that the Sun's readership has fallen by over 100,000 each day its front page has been dominated by demands for a referendum on the treaty. Meanwhile, Mark Mardell's blog points out that more people declared their religion to be "Jedi" in the last census than have signed the Sun's petition. When looking at the substance of the text, such apathy is unsurprising - are people really suggesting a referendum should be held on whether we replace the 6-month rotating presidency of the European Council with a 30-month one, or apply qualified majority voting to the composition of the comitology committee?!

Let us be clear: this treaty is good for Britain and for the EU. It abandons the previous concept of a Constitution that swept away all the existing treaties and replaced them with a codifying Constitution, and the various symbols and controversial elements that some countries felt had the trappings of statehood. At the same time, it preserves the practical adjustments to the EU institutions contained in the Constitution: the strengthened role of national and European parliaments in EU decision making, reducing the number of Commissioners, merging the two EU foreign affairs positions into one role of High Representative, replacing the six month rotating Council presidency with a 30-month permanent position.

In short, it is a compromise between the 18 countries that had said 'yes', the two who said 'no', and the seven who were waiting to see on the constitution - but a positive compromise that should put an end to the years of institutional wrangling and enable EU decision making to be more effective and efficient. For those of us who believe in Britain's place in the European Union, this is a result to be welcomed.

P.S. I was pleased to read the position of Business Europe (the CBI and its European partners) welcoming the Reform Treaty. In their words, "the proposed Reform Treaty is a good compromise providing an improved framework for decision-making with 27 Member States".

It is a sad reflection on the state of debate in Britain on European affairs when the chair of the House of Commons EU Committee starts to compare negotiations on the details of the EU Reform Treaty with Neville Chamberlain caving in to Hitler at Munich in 1938. Munich was about appeasing a totalitarian dictatorship. The Reform Treaty is about us agreeing with 26 other democratic states in Europe on how we make adjustments to the voluntary co-operation we have established with each other over the past half century. To compare the two is insulting to the intelligence of any objective observer.

Of course, backbenchers in the House of Commons rarely get an opportunity to be in the limelight. They are tempted to gain their 15 minutes of fame by saying outrageous things or by becoming a temporary thorn in the side of the Government. This case seems to be no exception. Having scoured the draft of the new treaty for something to object to, he first made a song and dance about a new provision strengthening the role of national parliaments in the European Union (something Britain had wanted) by claiming that this imposed a legal obligation on the national parliaments to be constructive. Now, he is focusing on one of the most complex parts of the treaty to stir up unwarranted fears, knowing that the very complexity will be a barrier for most journalists and many of his colleagues to actually get to grips with the detail and contradict him.

The matter concerns Britain's opt in/out arrangement for the Justice and Home Affairs responsibilities of the European Union. To maximise Britain's right to choose not to opt in to legislation in this field, the Government had secured the right to re-consider its position should legislation that Britain has already opted in to, be amended in the future. This logically implies that Britain may, if it goes down that route, be excluded from legislation that it currently opts in to. For eurosceptics to now fret about Britain being excluded from European legislation, when they normally oppose its very existence, is of course new - but then they have never much worried about having logic on their side!

Similarly, the treaty contains a provision to cover the case of Britain having to cover the costs of opting out in certain situations. For instance, if Britain were to opt out of the Eurojust agency (for cooperation amongst prosecuting authorities in cases of trans-frontier crime and international investigations, such as on child abductions), then British officials in Eurojust would obviously lose their jobs. Not unreasonably, the other Member States say that, in such circumstances, Britain should pay the cost of their redeployment or redundancy. These will not be big amounts in the grand scheme of things, yet it is now being hyped up that Britain will have to pay a fortune to pay for its opt-outs.

Finally, Mr Connarty seems to object to the Court of Justice being given jurisdiction to settle disputes over the interpretation of texts that Member States have agreed to. This can only happen, of course, when the text in question is something that Britain has chosen not to opt out of. Just as in every area of EU law, such disputes are settled by the Court. This is in our interest, lest other countries simply ignore their obligations (in a different field, remember how we were able to bring France to book for continuing to ban British beef after it was safe, thanks to taking them to the Court). The Court cannot, of course, create law - it can only rule on disputes that are referred to it. Its members are appointed by the Member States, not by the Commission or the European Parliament, so it is unlikely to show bias in favour of the EU institutions as opposed to Member States. Yet, for some reason, British Eurosceptics have placed the Court in their sights, not because they are confident that all other Member States will always respect the agreements they reach with us, but because they know that eliminating a means of arbitration is likely to increase unresolved disputes within the European Union - a prospect they relish.

I recently appeared on the BBC's The Record Europe programme debating the proposed treaty with three other MEPs and presenter Shirin Wheeler.

You can watch it here, though it may well be replaced by a new edition soon.

I was delighted to share a platform in London this morning with Lord Brittan - formerly Sir Leon Brittan, Conservative Home Secretary. He made it absolutely clear that he supports the Reform Treaty and does not think much of the posturing of the current Conservative leadership in opposing it and demanding a referendum, especially as they would - if they were in power - sign up to essentially the same package. Other Tory grandees such as Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten also support the Reform Treaty.

In the afternoon, I and other Labour MEPs met Gordon Brown, who is upbeat and confident about securing a deal on a new treaty at the end of this week. Other meetings with ministers, and with TUC, improved my mood of optimism.

In the evening, I gave a lecture at the Italian Cultural Institute in London on the life of Altiero Spinelli, who was born 100 years ago. I thought there would be a dozen people attending, but was delighted when some 100 turned up - perhaps there is greater appreciation for Spinelli in the UK than the state of our public debate on Europe would suggest!

I was delighted to accept an invite from Birmingham University to debate against two Party leaders, (albeit from pseudo parties) UKIP’s Nigel Farage and Veritas’ Patrick Eston, the motion that “This house believes Britain should leave the EU”.

However, Nigel Farage pulled out at the last minute, claiming he couldn’t get there in time from Brussels (although that’s precisely where I came from).

The debate had been widely advertised on Eurosceptic websites such as those of Veritas, Conservative Future but their attempts to pack the audience in their favour did not pay off with an overwhelming majority opposing the motion at the end of the debate (with, I am delighted to say, a swing in our favour if you compare the votes before and after). Many of the students in the audience were well informed about the EU and a thoroughly enjoyable and lively debate was held. Peter Luff, of the European Movement, also spoke on my side.

I was also intrigued to hear the latest Eurosceptic argument that claimed the EU is undemocratic because in the Council of Ministers, one country can halt the will of 26 others by using their veto – not something hitherto from the Eurosceptic side!

Timothy Garton Ash’s latest column for the Guardian gives five good reasons for not having a referendum on the proposed EU Treaty, though he admits to being utterly fed up that we are back having the same old arguments about Europe.

His previous week’s column is also a very good read and simply points out the contradiction between many of the Foreign Policy aspirations the Conservatives spelt out at the Conference and their continued distaste for anything to do with the EU.

He points out it makes no sense to call on the EU to take action against Burma and put pressure on Zimbabwe while in the next breath condemning the Reform Treaty and screaming hysterically at the merest mention of any common foreign policy.

He also backs up the point I made last week which was that the Conservatives’ attitude to Europe in opposition would be completely and utterly untenable in power.

It seems like it’s not only the media that have a hand in giving the EU an undeserved bad name. This time, residents in Hull, taking adult educational night classes, were informed that concessions could no longer be given to over 60-year-olds because of EU anti-discrimination legislation.

The letter, sent by Hull City Council to adults enrolled on night classes, should have in fact referred to the UK’s Age Discrimination Act 2006. After consulting with their solicitors, Hull City Council was advised that offering concessions to over 60-year-olds could violate British anti-discrimination laws.

Hull City Council’s Adult Community Learning Centre has now recognised its mistake and is sending a circular to all its students to inform them why exactly concessions can no longer be given based on age – which is not because of any “EU laws”!

But it is mistakes like this (comparable to the recent MV Coronia and Yorkshire Belle affair, where pleasure boats on Yorkshire’s coast were banned due to the British authorities who blamed it on the EU) which contribute to the EU gaining an undeservedly bad name for “interfering.”

Today my parliamentary committee held a public hearing on lobbying in the European Union. Brussels is, apparently, home to as many lobbyists as Washington DC - and we all know that in the latter, 22 Congressmen and staffers are currently in jail having been convicted or indicted on corruption charges related to the activities of lobbyists.

Fortunately, we do not have the American political system whereby election campaigns of Congressmen and Senators require vast amounts of money to pay for individualised advertisements on television. In most European countries, like Britain, there is guaranteed fair and free access for political parties to television coverage, ceilings on expenditure during election campaigns, and the bulk of campaigning activity is organised and paid for by parties rather than the individual MPs. Furthermore, we have permanent civil servants - and do not have whole departments whose staff change in function of the election results with a keen vested interests in helping the campaign of one side or another.

In most European countries, and in the European Union, lobbyists do not exercise influence by making campaign contributions in the American way but have to rely more on force of persuasion and argument. Fortunately, on any given issue, there are a variety of lobbyists: producers and consumers, employers and trade unionists, NGOs of all kinds from environmental campaigners to consumer protection activists. It is the job of the MEP to listen to the various points of view and then to exercise judgement, remembering that as elected representatives they are accountable to the electorate as a whole, not a particular sector or interest.

The European Parliament actually has stricter rules than many national parliaments as regards the access of lobbyists to the Parliament. Lobbyists must register with the Parliament, wear a special badge and accept to comply with a code of conduct, failing which their pass will be removed. MEPs are prohibited from accepting gifts and they must declare and register any material support in terms of staff or finance granted to them in connection with their political activities.

Discussions are now underway to see whether the Commission and the Parliament should have a common set of rules on these matters and whether they can oblige all lobbyists to declare and publish their own financial sources and list of people they have contacted. If adopted, such proposals would place the European institutions well ahead of the average in terms of transparency and regulation of interest groups and lobbyists. Parliament's rapporteur on this is the Finnish Conservative Alexander Stubb MEP who is a refreshing contrast to the British Conservatives.

Just imagine - however unlikely that may seem - that the Conservatives win a general election next month. They would unavoidably face an immedite split on Europe.

First they would have to decide whether or not to sign the EU Reform Treaty, the text of which will already have been agreed by 27 national governments, or whether to seek to re-open negotiations. No other EU country will want to re-open issues, when Britain is already perceived to have won all of its negotiating positions in the IGC. This could easily turn into a major crisis, with the most Eurosceptic wing of the Tories (and of the press) keen to escalate it into a battle for withdrawal from the EU.

In fact, we know from the Tory "Alternative Treaty", which they have recently been keeping quiet about, that their leadership actually accepts almost all of the Reform Treaty's actual content. It is for electoral reasons that they are now playing up their opposition to it, but without spelling out what they would do. Presumably, they will seek some cosmetic changes that they can present as victories - but then they will have to sell the package to the British people in the referendum that they have promised on it.

Imagine them having to go out and defend a package 95% identical to the one they were so recently rubbishing! The charges of cynicism and dishonesty, that they are all-to-keen to make now, would come home to roost.

In any case, it would be difficult to see Bill Cash and his ilk campaigning for the new treaty! So the far-right of the Tory party would campaign for a "No" vote, egged on by much of their press. Even if the government won the referendum, it would cause them lasting damage.

Then, to fulfill their conference pledge to hold referendums on ANY new treaty, they would within a couple of years have to hold another referendum on the Treaty of Accession for Croatia.

And if they really did pursue their proclaimed objective of withdrawing Britain from the Social Chapter of the Treaty (assuming they could pursuade all other EU countries to let Britain have a free ride and undercut the basic standards that apply to everyone else in the single European market), they would then have to put that treaty change to a referendum too. In this case, Labour, Liberals and vehement trade union opposition, presumably mid-term of a Conservative government, would make defeat a likely scenario.

I rather suspect that the Conservative leadership would rather not come to power now, and would actually prefer to wait until this issue is settled, with the Reform Treaty ratified, while trying to milk the issue for all its worth in the meantime.

Yesterday we voted in Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on a proposal for the composition of the European Parliament after the next European elections.

Although this would appear to be an issue guaranteed to set Member States in conflict with each other, in fact a very large consensus (70%) rallied behind the proposal drafted by the Committee. This is because, once you take account of the constraints laid down by the treaty (minimum of six per country, maximum of 96 and the principle of "degressive proportionality" whereby the bigger a country's population the more seats it has but tapering so that MEPs from larger Member States represent more electors than those from smaller Member States), there's little practical leeway and the solution is pretty obvious. It focuses on correcting the main anomalies that have occurred over the years due to demographic change (and the bargaining of Mr Aznar at Nice in 2000 when he secured in the Nice Treaty extra votes for Spain in the Council at the expense of seats in the European Parliament. As the former will be changed by the new Reform Treaty, the latter requires correction as well.)

Of course, MEPs from some countries "tried it on". Some Irish said that their population is due to rise faster over the next decade and that this should be anticipated already. Some Italians argued that the number of citizens not residents should be counted for their population so that they can count the 3-4million Italian citizens resident in Argentina. The Poles made much of the fact that 3million Poles live in other EU countries - but they are, of course, allowed to vote in those countries in European elections.

But it was the British Conservatives that had the most bizarre position, having proclaimed loudly (and written letters to the other parties) to say Britain was underrepresented compared to smaller countries. Yet the only amendment they tabled was to give Italy an extra seat at the expense of France! Not a single Conservative MEP attended the meeting to explain their rationale so it will remain a mystery for now.

The much heralded new roaming charges were introduced for all mobile phone users across Europe at the weekend.

The new tariffs, approved by the European Parliament in May this year, mean there are now caps in place which mean it will cost a maximum of 17p a minute to receive a call and 34p a minute to make a call when abroad, with the cost set to continue dropping over the next three years.

Perhaps the most important measure in the regulations are that mobile networks must now be transparent about the cost of making and receiving calls in another country.
Prior to the regulations few people were clear about the cost of using a mobile abroad and with many were left stunned to learn that it could cost over a pound a minute merely to receive a call abroad.

Networks will now have to inform mobile users about the costs of using their phones everytime they enter a new EU country.

However, there is still work to do, as text messages and data charges are currently not covered by the tariffs but MEPs and the Commission are already pressuring networks to change this before regulation is needed.

The BBC has followed the progress of the roaming charges from beginning to end. Click here for more.

Click here for questions and answers on the new tariffs.

I came across this interesting piece by Peter Preston in the Observer on Sunday. A recent opinion poll by Ipsos-Mori showed that just 3% of Britons feel that the EU is the biggest political issue facing our country. It is not surprising that the vast majority of people are more concerned by the state of the NHS, education, pensions and the environment than in an EU treaty that makes some slight re-adjustments to the EU institutions.

Except if you read the Sun that is. Last Tuesday the Sun devoted a full six pages to a set of rabid and frequently factually inaccurate diatribes against the proposed Reform Treaty, with Gordon Brown mocked-up to look like Churchill adorning the front-page alongside the slogan "Never have so few decided so much for so many". The Sun has also published opinions polls claiming that Labour would be nearly 20 points ahead of the Tories (equivalent to a landslide election victory even bigger than in 1997!) if the Government holds a referendum on the treaty. The ferocity and single-minded determination of the Murdoch press has been considerable.

However, it does not appear to be shared by their readers. As the political jamboree of party conference season comes to an end, around 100,000 readers have signed an on-line petition calling for a referendum. According to the Newspaper Marketing Agency website the Sun's readership is just over 8 million readers, which amounts to less than 1.5%.

As Peter Preston very succinctly puts it, "never in Sun history, you might say, have so few rallied round after so many scarifying appeals".