Godfrey and his fistful of euros

Following this week’s part session I dashed back to Yorkshire to go head to head with my favourite curmudgeonly UKIPer Godfrey Bloom, in a debate at the University of York on Britain’s place in the EU.

Godfrey imparted his usual mix of myths, allegations and outrageous statements to the audience, culminating with him calling for an end to all aid to Africa because it was holding the continent back.

So no real surprises until Godfrey led the charge to the bar for the post-debate drinks. Kindly offering to get a round in, Godfrey dipped into his pockets but found, to his consternation, that he only had euros! "No Problem" said the students -we accept euros here..

Tory comes out against referendum

With Timothy Kirkhope ousted as leader of the Tories in Europe, it has been interesting to read the response on the Conservative Home website (here and earlier here. Nearly all Conservative attitudes to Europe are represented and nobody seems particularly happy with the result, with new leader Giles Chichester considered too Europhile by some and too Eurosceptic by others. Some are even demanding that any MEP not in favour of leaving the EPP should be automatically deselected for the next European election which, considering Eurosceptics like Parish and Heaton-Harris are destined for safe Westminster seats and others like Kamall have similar ambitions, could mean an almost completely new group of Conservative MEPs in 2009.

With that in mind it will be intetresting to see the reaction to Christopher Beazley’s decision to speak out against a referendum on Europe in a radio debate with my colleague Richard Howitt and the Lib Dem’s Andrew Duff. Not only that, Beazley actually requested that the debate focus on the contents of the treaty rather than on calls for a referendum. It’s a bold move by Beazley and should be welcomed, though it clearly won’t be by Tory Eurosceptics who will be baying for his blood.

Cameron the real loser in the Tory's leadership battle in Europe

The Conservative delegation in the European Parliament was plunged into fresh turmoil tonight after Timothy Kirkhope, a pro-European moderate who has led the delegation since 2004, was defeated by a solitary vote by the Eurosceptic Giles Chichester. Meanwhile, the Europhile Robert Atkins was ousted by Phillip Bushell-Matthews as Deputy Leader.

This is a real kick in the teeth for the moderates in the Tory delegation - the Tory delegation is bitterly divided - but Kirkhope has always been dignified and tried to bridge the yawning divide between the moderates and the head-banging Europhobes. Still, after three years of plotting and failed coups, the sceptics have finally got their man, with Chichester willing to be sceptic enough to get the support of Heaton-Harris, Callanan et al.

However, the main story was that both candidates refused to back Tory leader David Cameron's pledge to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party, causing Dan Hannan, arguably the most anti-European Tory MEP, to abstain in the leadership vote. Apart from Hannan, and maybe one or two others, even the anti-European members realise that leaving the EPP is a route to isolation and impotence.

It is astonishing that Cameron's colleagues in Europe, so divided on climate change, women's rights, consumer protection legislation (just to name a few), are seemingly united in their opposition to their party leader's main promise. Either way it shows that Cameron will have grave difficulty in honouring his pledge to withdraw from the EPP (short of having more than half his delegation de-selected). It shows that despite Cameron's populism on Europe, he is a leader not being followed.

Giles Chichester has been an MEP since 1994. Interestingly, he was first elected by mistake. Under first past the post for Devon and East Plymouth, the Liberal Democrat vote was split with a Richard Hugget standing as a "Literal Democrat", gaining over 10,000 votes and stopping the Liberal Democrats from taking the seat, which they otherwise would have done with ease.

The narrowness of his leadership victory means that Chichester is going to have a real battle to reconcile the two warring factions. I for one wouldn't relish the task of trying to unify a party that has such polar opposites as Christopher Beazley and Roger Helmer in it!

Karim crossing the floor

Interesting to see Saj Karim's defection from the Lib Dems to the Tories this week, which may not have been for entirely altruistic reasons.

It appears that rather than a principled decision, Saj's defection is the result of a fit of pique after only securing second place on the Liberal Democrat list for the next European elections in 2009. The maverick Chris Davies took 63% of the votes cast by party members across the region, and Saj Karim was the best of the rest. The North-West is set to lose one of its nine seats at the next elections due to enlargement, putting Karim in danger of losing his seat. One can safely assume that the Conservatives will ensure that this does not happen now (to the annoyance of other Tory hopefuls in the North-West, including former MEP Jackie Foster).

Still, I presume that Saj, who strongly supported the constitution, will set about converting the likes of Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris and Martin Callanan of the benefits of Britain's EU membership and will convince his new colleagues to support the Reform Treaty!

In praise of the Western Morning News

For a newspaper in the Daily Mail group and which regularly allows UKIP MEPs and other Europhobes free reign in its letters page, the Western Morning News editorial yesterday was an extraordinarily well-argued comment in favour of the Reform Treaty. There was a precise explanation and evaluation of what exactly the treaty contains, a rebuttal of the myths that have prospered and an articulate attack on a local Tory MEP heading for the House of Commons.

The editorial asked: "If the Reform Treaty is going to crush our sovereignty so much, why is it that an ambitious politician like the South West Conservative MEP Neil Parrish is bidding for a Westminster seat even though the powers of MEPs are going to be increased?"

They then quote an answer from the man himself: "People keep asking me why I want to make the leap to Westminster. I tell them I will sincerely miss serving the South West in the European Parliament but ultimately for anyone who loves political service, the Commons is the place to be." Maybe – but if so, this hardly tallies with the line that Westminster is being reduced to a parish council!

The Guardian chose the same day to take a lighthearted look at the variety of myths propagated since the arrival of EU migrants from eastern European countries. EU migrants have been blamed for the quality of service in restaurants, a shortage of £50 notes and even accused of eating swans and poaching carp! It also points out how statistics are used to denigrate migrants, by never bothering to explain that things like a rise in foreign cars involved in accidents is entirely logical because there are now more foreign cars on the road.

As if to prove certain attitudes towards migrants the Daily Telegraph’s Village Britain series concluded with the headline "Village Britain: Half the population is foreign". The article actually says that 10 per cent of the population of Boston are migrants, with the "half" claim coming from someone pruning flowers in an entirely different village! The article goes on to acknowledge that migrant labour hasn’t taken jobs from local people, has helped the area boom and that there is a history of migrant labour in the area (Irish migrants and unemployed miners have done the work in the past). So, why then the sensationalist headline?

Tory sleaze

Cameron's astonishing appointment of former minister Jonathon Aitken to head a Tory working party shows how desparate the Tories are to bring back wayward former Conservatives to the fold.

Aitken, who supported UKIP at the last European election, was not only jailed for perjury (having initially tried to sue the journalist who blew his cover!) - he has to this day not revealed what he was up to in the Paris Ritz as a guest of the Saudis while he was defence procurement minister.

I was reminded of some of the other sleaze cases of the last Tory government - far more spectacular than any of the supposed sleaze allegations made nowadays - when Neil Hamilton popped up the other day to accuse the EU of... fraud. Coming from the man who received cash in brown envelopes in return for favours in parliament, this is a bit rich. Hamilton is also UKIP - is there something that magically attracts discredited Tories to them?

But, if they want him back, why don't the Tories appoint Hamilton as head of a working group on parliamentary standards? And Jeffrey Archer on prisons? Cecil Parkinson on child support by absent fathers? John Wakeham (of Enron fame) on corporate social responsibility? And Piers Merchant (of teenage mistress fame, but now Chief Executive of UKIP) on teenage sex?

Welcome support for the Reform Treaty

"Useful improvements to what we have now" was the general reaction of voluntary sector organisations to the EU Reform treaty at a meeting in London yesterday.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy, myself and Gary Titley met the NCVO to discuss the new treaty and their views on it. It was refreshing to have a discussion on what the treaty actually says, rather than on the red herring of whether we should have a referendum on it.

From a variety of perspectives (RSPB, NSPCC, sports organisations, development NGOs, civil liberty groups and so on) the voluntary organisations argued that the new treaty was helpful in providing for more efficient decision-taking in their field, better arrangements for their involvement, more democratic accountability and/or better defined objectives for EU action in the fields in which they are active.

The only misgiving expressed about the new treaty was about where it doesn't change the status quo - the subjects the new treaty does not affect one way or the other. There were also fears that Britain's special protocol on the Charter of Rights might lead to a lower level of protection for EU citizens resident in the UK. But all in all, the treaty is regarded as a welcome set of improvements.

Crucially, this is an opinion expressed by practioners, active but independent of government, who have actually looked at what the treaty says. A strikingly different tone from most press coverage and the views expressed by the Conservatives, UKIP, and BNP.

Mote affair highlights an absurd situation

One welcome result of former UKIP MEP Ashley Mote's stint in jail for multiple benefit fraud, could be a change to the law that has allowed him to be paid as an MEP despite being unable to carry out his function as an elected representative. The Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, who is responsible for the payment of MPs and MEPs, is now in the process of reviewing the legislation.

The law was introduced back in 1981 after IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands was elected to the Commons despite being in prison, to stop others from doing the same. It disqualifies anyone from being an MP if they are facing a prison sentence of more than a year. These were somewhat exceptional circumstances - I don't think that the then Tory government thought that the law would lead to the farcical situation whereby a politician continues to receive his taxpayer-funded salary, while in jail at the expense of the taxpayer and all for defrauding the taxpayer in the first place. It is outrageous that politicians can continue to be paid when they are in prison for defrauding their electorate and, self-evidently, cannot represent their constituents.

There will be some who say that Mr Mote never did much work when has was allowed to attend Parliament sessions - we shall see what happens when he returns to Brussels in the New Year.

The English language – a winner or a loser?

Over the weekend, I went to The Hague to speak at the conference of Europe’s young socialists (which includes Labour students and Young Labour). I was struck that the youngsters manage without interpretation – all, including the French, use English for all the debates and discussions. Not yet something we can look forward to in the European Parliament, but an interested indicator of the trend towards our language – or a simplified version of it – becoming the lingua franca of Europe.

This has both advantages and disadvantages. A commonly understood language helps communication and cuts interpretation costs. It gives an unfair advantage to native speakers (which some will see as an advantage, but others won't!). But it does mean that we all tend to speak a simplified form of English, devoid of idioms and of less well known expressions and turns of phrase. No references to "batting on a sticky wicket" or using rhyming slang!

The massive gains and convenience are at the expense of an impoverishment of the language.

Drastic differences of interpretation

David Miliband's speech at the College of Europe in Bruges provoked a wildly disparate response from Friday's papers, which reinforces the point David Rennie made on coverage of the EU - rarely is it accurate, let alone balanced.

In what was a comparatively modest speech looking at the future of the EU, the Daily Express, delved deep into its chest of conspiracy theories and raged against Miliband's "project for the Islamification of Europe". The Daily Mail decided he had "grandiose ambitions for a new EU empire" but the Independent took precisely the opposite view, accusing him of wishing to "diminish the EU".

The Guardian praised his "meaty" speech and was relieved to hear talk of an “outward-looking EU” but the Independent complains it wasn’t ambitious enough.

Hmmm. So plenty of coverage but few actual quotes and a rag-bag of claims, mostly unfounded and from the usual suspects. If you want to find out what Miliband actually said, his speech is up on the Foreign Office’s website here.

Depressing state of the press

The poor quality of UK press coverage of the EU is something I've often moaned about. Those who think I exaggerate should read the recent article by David Rennie, who was until recently the Daily Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, so cannot be accused of coming from a pro-Europe stable.

In his article in E!Sharp magazine he says:

"British press reporting on the European Union is getting sharply worse. This matters more than you might think. When barmy Brussels stories first became a staple, they usually contained at least a speck of truth, which was then spun into an overblown confection like so much candy floss. Lately, however, once-serious newspapers have printed several stories that have not been checked at all or - strikingly - have been flatly denied by EU or government press officers, but published anyway."

He goes on to ask:

"Why are things getting worse? Here are a few hunches. British newspapers are turning their backs on Europe. While the Brussels press corps is growing overall, the number of full-time staff correspondents from the UK is shrinking steadily. The worst pieces are almost always written from from London, unsullied by contact with arguments from Brussels."

He also quotes some of the same examples that I have blogged on such as the Sunday Express' article on "a new EU police force" which he rightly describes as a "slab of tosh" pointing out that the opening sentance of the article succeeds in "cramming three claims into 17 words and getting all of them wrong", and the News of the World story on the Queen being removed from British passports - which, he points out, the Daily Telegraph repeated after the government had pointed out that it was not true.

My colleagues from other countries often tell me of their incredulity at how outright untruths find their way into headlines in some British newspapers, even when the papers themselves know the story to be untrue. And it is hard not to conclude that this drip drip drip of falsehoods denigrating the EU does not have an effect on public attitudes to Europe (just look at the comments section on the Telegraph's passport story).

Scraping the barrel

Disappointing but not surprising that the 'impartial' Open Europe thinktank has scraped the barrel by stirring up claims that the Reform Treaty would allow the suspects accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence to avoid retrial. This is deeply tasteless and untrue.

Open Europe refers to the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has a line that reads, "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted".

Of course, Open Europe knows full well that the British protocol on the Charter clearly states that it does not create any new rights under British law. If an equivalent right already does exist under UK law, it is because we have chosen to have it through past British decisions, unaffected by the proposed new Reform Treaty. Therefore, this story is a complete red herring and a tasteless attempt to use a shocking racist murder for political propaganda.

The Tory's jumbled mess of referendum promises

The Tories are in complete chaos over whether to call a post-ratification referendum following the speech by Foreign Affairs spokesman William Hague in the Commons on Monday, in which he stated that the treaty ratified by Parliament without a referendum would "not be acceptable to a Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there". He started to expand beginning, "in such circumstances" before deciding not to complete the rest of the sentence.

As Ken Clarke noted several moments later, Mr Hague had "given a helpful new statement of Opposition party policy, although it came to a rather vague conclusion". Clarke added that the alternatives were either "repudiation of a treaty that this country has ratified; an attempt to renegotiate or reopen that treaty; a parliamentary process of some kind; or a referendum" and pointed out that the Tories had "always accepted treaty obligations accepted by previous governments" when they came to office.

Meanwhile, the highly Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan claimed yesterday in the Northern Echo that "David Cameron has even committed to a referendum after the treaty has come into force". This, presumably, will come as news to Cameron, who has so far refused to pledge a post-ratification referendum. Indeed, after Hague's speech, Cameron's spokesman told the press that that had been "no change" to party policy.

Once again the Tories are divided on Europe. Less than two weeks ago former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (no Europhile he) urged Cameron not to allow the debate on the Reform Treaty to be "dominated by the small group of hardline Europhobes" and described demands for a post-ratification plebiscite as "silly and wrong".

Let us be clear - a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after its ratification would, in effect, be a referendum on whether to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU. The Tory hardliners are quite candid that they would view this as an opportunity to engineer British withdrawal. No amount of sophistry from Cameron can hide the fact that by refusing to take on the Europhobes he reveals his parties complete lack of credibility on Europe.

To add to the confusion (or maybe to deflect attention away from their dilemna over a European referendum), Cameron is now promising local referendums on council tax rises. He has vowed to make councils offer a referendum if they want to raise their council tax beyond a certain threshold and said, "I want to replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability".

He seems to think local councillors are bureaucrats (much as he seems to think MEPs are) and not elected. In most areas there are council elections three years out of four - plenty of opportunity to vote out an administration you don’t like. A referendum each year added to this is preposterous.

But what about this? Cameron went on to say, "Council tax referendum ballots would be sent out with the annual council tax bill". Does this mean people who don’t pay council tax, like students, will not get a vote? If so that also spells the end to universal sufferage!

As poorly put together as this idea is, it is merely a sideshow to the real argument do we want a parliamentary democracy or do we want a plebiscitory democracy? By offering a series of referendums the Tories would fundamentally change the way Britain is governed, surely a bigger threat to Britain’s tradition of parliamentary democracy than either a new treaty being ratified through the Commons and Lords, or elected Councillors deciding a budget for a council.

Rapporteur for the new treaty

I was delighted to be appointed yesterday to draw up the European Parliament's report on the Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) together with my colleague, Inigo Mendez de Vigo. We are the co-ordinators of the two main political groups (the Socialists in my case and the Conservative+Christian Democrat EPP Group in his) showing the widespread support the Treaty enjoys from both sides of the House (apart from many of the British Conservatives).

Of course, we will just make the first draft - the parliamentary committee and then Parliament as a whole will vote on and can amend our draft. But the first discussion in committee last night showed broad support for an approach that focusses on comparing the new treaty to the current treaties (and noting the improvements) rather than on comparing it to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty (and moaning about the changes). A few Members did argue that we should focus on the latter, deploring the loss of the Constitution, but they were a minority.

It is an honour that my parliamentary colleagues have chosen me for this high-profile report. I hope that a clear, factual report will shed light on the new treaty and show why national parliaments should also approve it.

The EU's accounts: the whole picture

Here we go again: today begins the annual saga of the Court of Auditors report on the EU accounts.

For almost as long as the Britain's Department of Work and Pensions (whose budget is far bigger than that of the EU), the EU's accounts have not been subject to "unqualified approval" in all fields of expenditure.

The auditors have again found fault with spending of EU funds (largely by national governments) as regards agriculture, structural funds, and a proportion of external action.

However, they do explicitly say that "this does NOT imply that the errors found are a result of fraud, or that all, or most, transactions in these areas are irregular" - a vital point which I predict will not be quoted by most media commentators.

Nor will the media focus on the unqualified approval of the administrative expenditure of the EU, carried out by the EU institions themselves, not the Member States.

The errors that there are in the EU spending system need dealing with and ractification. But what you won't realise from most of the media is that they are no worse (and some say not as bad as) than those that occur at national level.

ITS all over

I was cheered by the news that the European Parliament's smallest but most poisonous and extremist political groups looks set to fold. The Greater Romania party has announced that it will leave the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) group after one of its members Italian MEP Alessandra Mussolini (the granddaughter of the Italian dictator) told a Romanian newspaper that - "breaking the law became a way of life for Romanians".

Under the Parliamentary rulebook, the minimum number of MEPs required to form a political group is 20 and they must include representatives from at least one fifth of the Member States. Political groups receive research budgets and administrative support and are better able to secure influential positions on parliamentary committees and the bureau of the Parliament than non-attached MEPs. If the five MEPs for the Greater Romania Party leave the ITS, the group will be reduced to 18 members and will cease to exist.

The demise of the ITS group is no loss to the Parliament. On the contrary, the ITS group is a rag-bag of assorted xenophobes, holocaust deniers and fascists, with its luminaries including Jean Marie Le Pen, Jörg Haider's Austrian Free Democrats and Ms Mussolini.

As a side-note, the ITS group includes former UKIP MEP Ashley Mote who is currently serving a nine month prison sentence for multiple benefit fraud offences. I wonder whether UKIP will welcome him back!

David Cameron is dithering in the face of attempts by right-wing Tories to bounce him into pledging a post-ratification referendum on the Reform Treaty, refusing to answer when challenged by Gordon Brown in this week's Queen's speech debate. But while he fails to give leadership, others around him are trying to force a decision.

The idea to hold a post-ratification referendum is being pushed by the fiercest Eurosceptics in the Tory ranks who see it as a way to engineer British withdrawal from the EU. Indeed, the Early Day Motion on the matter that has been tabled in the House of Commons by John Redwood has been supported by 47 Tory MPs.

Meanwhile, former Thatcherite Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit (also a member of Better Off Out) has stoked up the fire, claiming that Cameron has already promised a post-ratification referendum in the Sun. Similarly, a Conservative poster released last week promised that a referendum on the treaty had been "delayed until the election of a Conservative government", although Tory central office later backtracked.

During the Queen's speech debate Gordon described the Tories' proposals as "confused, contradictory and not thought through". Quite.

Following on from my Parliamentary Question on the subject of the illegal hunting of wild birds in Malta, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Commission has announced that it is sending its final warning to the Maltese authorities to order them to stop the illegal hunting of wild birds in spring in contravention of the EU Wild Birds Directive. Lax protection in Malta can undermine the efforts of the rest of Europe to protect migratory birds - a good example of where European legislation can do more than piecemeal national legislation.

Malta is located on an important bird migration route in the Mediterranean. The European Union’s Wild Birds Directive specifically protects birds during their perilous spring migration from Africa to their breeding grounds further north in Europe, including the UK.

Currently, laws in Malta allow the hunting of the birds during spring, but in issuing this warning, the Commission is asking Malta to bring its laws in line with the EU’s Wild Birds Directive. Commenting on the Commission’s action, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "By taking these measures the Commission is seeking to ensure that rules for the convention of bird species are followed throughout the EU to help prevent biodiversity loss."

The RSPB has urged the Maltese authorities to issue a declaration confirming the end of spring hunting. This would allow the European Commission to apply directly to the European Court of Justice for an immediate order blocking spring hunting for 2008 and beyond. Should Malta fail to respond to the Commission’s warning, the RSPB expects the Commission to take the Maltese authorities to the European Court immediately.

Hopefully this will be the end to the devastating spring hunts in Malta that threaten birdlife across Europe.

Good to see this story about the impact of the EU’s Objective 1 regeneration programme on the South Yorkshire economy. Employment rose by 14% in the region between 2000 and 2005, a rate that is three times higher than the national average.

The tangible effect of regeneration programmes on economic competitiveness - through training and developing skills, job creation and support for local businesses and entrepreneurship, should not be understated. Objective 1 research has shown that employment in the financial services sector in South Yorkshire has increased by 93% since 2000, while the creative and digital industries have grown by 58%. Indeed, since 2000, Objective 1 programmes have resulted in £800 million of funding to regenerate South Yorkshire and have helped create around 26,000 jobs.

The June 2009 European elections will be upon us soon (whether or not there is a General Election at or near that time). Yorkshire Labour party's European Regional Policy Forum focused on this on Saturday.

Linda McAvan and I reported back to around 100 Labour Party members on our work in the European Parliament over the past year.

In discussion many people were keen to build a positive campaign based on the benefits that joint action at European can provide and on Labour MEP successes in defining and adopting common rules for the common market that protect consumers, workers’ rights and the environment.

In the afternoon Julian Scuola and Alexandra Pardal, from the Party of the European Socialists, spoke of the early work - which all party members are invited to contribute to - in preparing the PES election manifesto, which will eventually provide a common platform for all the Labour parties across the EU in the 2009 election.

Surprising as it may seem I barely mentioned the new treaty in my introductory speech, leaving it to my old friend and former Secretary General of the European Parliament, Sir Julian Priestley, one of the most articulate advocates of the case for Europe. He produced a very thorough explanation of what it contains, and why we should not have a referendum, managing as well to squeeze in an attack on the Eurosceptic lies and distortions.

Former Europe Minister Denis MacShane also made a cameo appearance, making the point that Europe was a wedge issue between Labour and the Tories and one that should be exploited.

In a meeting with Flood’s Minister John Healey yesterday, MEPs were told the good news that Britain is due to receive £115million pounds from the European Solidarity fund, following this summer’s flooding.

It will constitute the second largest payment in the fund’s history with the money going towards paying for the expense of the emergency operation that followed (shelters, temporary accommodation, and restoring utilities) and rebuilding damaged infrastructure like bridges.

It is not yet known how much our region will receive but large parts of South Yorkshire and much of Hull were severely affected by the flooding and I’m sure they will receive the money they need.

The news also vindicates the government’s decision to make a patient and careful analysis of just how much damage was done rather than rushing in with a quick application just to win a few easy headlines.

On another matter of European funding, I have received an answer from a parliamentary question I asked in September concerning congestion in Hull.

Anyone who has used the A63 will know that Castle St in Hull is regularly gridlocked, partly because it is part of the Limerick to St Petersburg Trans-European Network, which carries the bulk of northern England and Ireland’s trade to the continent.

Because of its importance to trade I asked the Commission whether European money would be available to improve the current situation (a short tunnel is one idea), as the road also hinders Hull’s development somewhat by cutting the waterfront off from the rest of the city.

The Commission has since responded and have made clear that Hull could potentially receive some funding or failing that a loan from the European Investment Bank.