The importance of Modern Foreign Languages

I have received the following message from a secondary school teacher in Grimsby called Pat Holland, which makes a well argued point about the worrying state of Modern Languages teaching in our schools, and deserves wider circulation:

"I am in my final year (before retirement) of teaching French and German and have found the last few years very depressing. It has seemed strangely ironic that under Blair, who was supposedly pro-Europe and a French speaker, language teaching shrank, became optional, and lost status and teaching time. When I complained about this to the education department I was told that introducing languages into primary schools was going to bring about a renaissance in MFL learning; sadly, I'm old enough to remember how little impact the Schools Council project made in primary schools in the 70s, and how badly delivered it was by inexpert teachers. Although current colleagues in the primary sector seem full of good will and enthusiasm, the vicious circle of neglect of language teaching means that few of them have good enough language skills to deliver the curriculum effectively.

As I'm sure you're aware, MFL teachers play a most crucial role in teaching tolerance of other cultures. The rapid disappearance of German from state schools means we no longer have a chance to counter lingering prejudices from World War Two, and the lack of exchanges brought about by health and safety fears and the expense of covering teachers means that pupils now miss out on a life-changing experience which teaches self-reliance, linguisitic skill and tolerance. Reduced lesson time (in my school now only two hours per week) means that we have less time for songs, sketches and other creative activities.... All of this depresses me greatly, because it seems that MFL are becoming the preserve of Grammar and Public schools, and that a broad curriculum for all is a dead concept in comprehensive schools, to which so many of us 'baby-boomers' devoted our careers."

Eurosceptics admit they are "a small hardcore going nowhere"

The utter failure of the campaign by British Eurosceptics against the Lisbon Treaty was amply demonstrated by their protest yesterday outside Parliament. This demonstration was, after all, billed by some hardline Eurosceptics as 'the last chance to save Britain' (no less!). However, they organised the protest on the wrong day - the key vote they were targeting in the Commons will take place next week - and the so-called "mass" protest was attended by a mere few hundred people.

This has been the hallmark of the campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty: plenty of bluster about the treaty spelling the death of Britain and the end of the world as we know it, (and avoiding the real substance of the treaty), but total failure to make more than a small minority believe them enough to go out and back their campaign.

Despite backing from a media that is notoriously hostile to the EU and despite having a great deal of financial muscle, the motley crew of UKIP/Open Europe and the Conservatives have failed to make their message resonate with the British people. I never thought I would say this, but the analysis of the protest on the EU Referendum site is pretty close to the mark when it states that "Euroscepticism remains in the doldrums, a small minority of hardcore activists who are going nowhere".

Cameron's Euroscepticism loses more friends of influence

There’s an interesting post on the Times blogs by Sam Coates, about the awkward relationship between David Cameron and Republican front-runner John McCain.

In 2006 McCain was invited to speak at the Tory conference (it was less than thrilling) yet in the same year he criticised Cameron’s plans to pull out of the EPP, saying "I would hope they [the Conservatives] would appreciate the support they received from the EPP when they were wandering in the wilderness."

The Times blog quotes McCain as saying, "Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, and institutionalising our co-operation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance and democracy promotion."

Which perhaps explains the warm glow Dan Hannan feels everytime he mentions Obama’s name here and here

Majority voting is to Britain's advantage

Opponents of the EU sometimes argue that its provisions on majority voting mean Britain loses control because others will gang up against us to vote in a certain way, doing down our interests.

In fact, majority voting - which anyway is qualified majority voting (QMV) requiring over 70 percent of the weighted votes (weighting is by size, so Britain has more votes as a large country) to be in favour to adopt anything – rarely sees Britain out-voted, and certainly not on important matters, as Britain’s views are pretty much in the mainstream on most issues and it has enough negotiating skills to avoid being in a small minority.

The most recent figures I have show that over the three years 2004 to 2006, Britain voted against only one adopted EU measure in 2004, one in 2005 and two in 2006.

Were they of vital interest to Britain? The 2006 measures both concerned the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize. The 2005 measure was a trade measure for (eastern European) countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's stabilisation and Association process. The 2004 measure concerned common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In short, pretty minor, except perhaps the last one, where the quarrel was with the detail of a measure that has proved pretty popular with travellers and which many would like to see strengthened.

On the other side of the balance sheet, are the measures that Britain supported which would have been blocked by the veto of others if we had unanimity instead of QMV. With unanimity, 26 other governments have a veto over things we want, ranging from environmental measures, consumer protection, international development, trade, to CAP reform.

Seems pretty clear that QMV is in general a good deal, and should be supported – bearing in mind that it does not apply to really sensitive matters like tax, foreign policy, security, treaty revision, and so on.

Tory's emergency mythmaking

Britain has 999. Belgium has 100. France has whatever. Difficult for tourists and business travellers alike to remember every emergency number from every country they visit.

So, someone has the idea of having a common number that will work everywhere, not replacing 999 etc, but as an additional number that will put you through to the same switchboard. No problem remembering several different numbers. EU countries all agree to introduce such a system. Useful.

Then, along comes a Tory MEP, desperate for some publicity and media coverage, (Chris Heaton Harris, News of the World letters, 24 February), saying "They must be bonkers if they think we are going to drop 999 in favour of 112. This is another example of an idea pushed by Brussels which nobody wants"

Yet he must surely know perfectly well (it takes about 30 seconds to look at the relevant document, and he - and his staff - are paid by taxpayers to be on top of European legislation) that no one is suggesting to drop 999, and that, far from being an idea nobody wants, every EU country thought it was a good idea.

But why should a Eurosceptic MEP let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Revealed, the way the Tories voted on the treaty

Which way individual Tory MEPs voted on yesterday’s vote on the Lisbon Treaty makes interesting reading.

The vast majority voted against the treaty, in accordance with the Cameron/Hague line. They were, as I said yesterday, the only major party in the whole of the EU to do so.

But nearly a quarter did not follow their party dictat. Christopher Beazley voted in favour as did Tory new boy Sajid Karim, who having defected last year from the Lib Dems, has obviously failed to make many of his new colleagues see sense.

Five more avoided voting. Caroline Jackson might have been simply trying to avoid her colleagues after fiercely attacking them in the Financial Times.

But what of Syed Kamall, who has spent the past few sessions tediously squeezing in references to having a referendum in almost every speech he has made, regardless of the subject being debated, but on Wednesday, when he had a chance to vote on the treaty, he didn’t? Christopher Heaton-Harris and James Elles were also notable by their absence, though the former, at least, is an unlikely closet federalist.

As to Edward McMillan Scott, he can sometimes be very sensible, so not voting against was surely deliberate. And I won't reveal the names of those who apologised to me for not voting for my report on the treaty, citing unbearable pressure from on-high.

Lisbon Treaty overwhelmingly adopted by European Parliament

My report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I co-authored with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo MEP, pleasingly sailed through the European Parliament today, with 525 votes in favour and just 115 against.

Every single party that is in government in the EU’s member states and almost every single one of the principal opposition parties in every member state – except the British Conservatives - showed their support for the treaty in today’s vote.

All the main Christian Democrat parties, all the Socialist parties and the Liberal parties in each of the 27 member states supported the treaty. The same is true for the majority of the Green parties and even Conservative parties, except, of course, the Tories.

Opposition to the treaty came mainly from the far-right and some on the extreme left of the political spectrum. It was, though, curious to see a new political alliance being forged between Sinn Féin and the British Conservatives in opposing this treaty!

Bizarely, some opponents of the treaty argued that it was being adopted without them having access to the consolidated treaties (i.e. the treaties as they will be after being amended by the Lisbon Treaty) and the poor souls find it too hard work to cross reference the amendments. But in any case, consolidated treaties have been published by several member states. Frankly, any Member of the European Parliament who says he or she has not been able to study the texts is not doing the job which they are paid to do. It is pure laziness.

There were also some strange calls for the European Parliament to demand referendums in each member state to ratify the treaty. I find it quite amusing that those who oppose the European Union now want the European Parliament to tell sovereign member states what their internal procedures should be to ratify an international treaty. That is hypocrisy in the extreme!

Finally, I suppose I couldn’t blog on today’s events without mentioning UKIP’s chicken stunt. There were rumours every UKIP MEP was going to dress as a chicken during today’s vote but sadly the sight of Godfrey Bloom in a chicken suit was not to be and in the end they settled on wearing yellow t-shirts with a chicken print. At least they didn't try to disrupt the Parliament this time, but they didn't half look silly!

However, they spent so long parading outside the chamber for the benefit of the press that it became clear to everyone that what they were really "chicken" about, was taking part in the debate - presumably because they can't stand hearing views they disagree with. They simply dislike democratic parliamentary debate.

For my speech opening the debate click here and for my speech winding it up click here.

Eurosceptics at sixes and sevens

The old saying about not being able to organise a piss-up in a brewery now has a new version: not being able to organise a political event in a parliament!

Showing that there is seemingly no limit to their talent for incompetence, some hardline Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP MEPs have organised a "demonstration" against my report on the Treaty of Lisbon - but managed to choose the wrong day! Intended to coincide with the debate on my report (Wednesday), they have invited the media to come to watch their antics today (Tuesday), the day before it is to be debated.

Meanwhile, I gather that the expulsion of Tory malcontent Dan Hannan is on the agenda of the EPP Group later this evening. Today, Hannan got up in Parliament to apologise to President Pöttering for his comments last month when he compared the Parliament's President to Hitler. It is deeply ironic that an arch-Eurosceptic like Hannan who is desperate for the Conservatives to leave the EPP, is now trying to squirm his way out of being expelled from it. Has he done a U-turn, or has he been lent on from on-high to avoid further embarrassment for the Conservative party?

Later, not a single British Conservative MEP was in the chamber to hear the speech of the Swedish Conservative Prime Minister. Tory leader Giles Chichester did turn up briefly towards the end of ther debate, made a short speech, but didn't even have the courtesy to wait for the reply from the Prime Minister.

Why this striking absence? Can't they stand hearing from a Conservative leader about how good the Lisbon Treaty is? About how an effective European Union is the only way to meet common transnational challenges? Or are they embarrassed about how a Conservative Prime Minister dismisses out of hand arguments claiming that this treaty has constitutional implications or transfers sovereignty and therefore warrants a referendum?

.

So much for the British Conservatives wanting a wider and deeper debate on the future direction of Europe! They prefer to hide outside the chamber (presumably in the bar with the equally absent UKIP MEPs) than hear arguments that many of them recognise as correct, but which their public position precludes them from applauding. Another step in their self-imposed isolation from mainstream centre-right parties in Europe!

Regional funding has helped Yorkshire; now can the EU help our rhubarb farmers?

I spent this morning in Sheffield, which looks more impressive each time I visit, at the launch of the EU Regional Funding for Yorkshire up to 2013, with Commissionor Daunta Hübner and John Healey MP giving the key note speeches. South Yorkshire has benefitted the most due to its Objective One status over several years now and it has been key reason behind the area’s impressive economic regeneration. The level of funding Yorkshire will receive will now drop because of enlargement, but the region will still receive a substantial amount of money to help ensure its growth.

Following that I drove to Janet Oldroyd’s farm in Carlton to learn more about how Yorkshire rhubarb is produced. Huge, dark sheds contain thousands of stems of forced rhubarb, with the eerie silence inside only punctured by the popping of the stems through their pods.

As I have mentioned before, Janet and the other rhubarb growers are applying for Protected Designation of Origin status, which requires products to have features and characteristics which must be due to the geographical area.

Yorkshire rhubarb is so renown because the frost, soil and rainfall combine to create the perfect conditions for forced rhubarb, while the special techniques accrued by generations of growers ensure that it cannot be replicated.

Rising temperatures mean that it is becoming increasingly costly for growers to produce consistently large harvests, which makes it all the more important that Yorkshire rhubarb is awarded PDO status, so that growers can charge the price their product deserves and consumers can buy it, confident they are getting the real thing.

More good news for phone users

More good news for mobile phone users this week, as EU communications commissioner Viviane Reding set phone companies a July deadline for cutting the price of SMS and data transfer (which includes the internet and mobile email) charges in line with the drop in roaming call charges, which have fallen 60% since the EU introduced price caps for operators last year.

As it stands, operators charge up to 20 times more for roaming customers than domestic customers, with prices ranging widely throughout EU countries. Operators have been given until July 1st to reduce prices, at which point Reding says she will assess the situation again, with regulation being considered if necessary.

Mobile phone roaming is a clear example of an area where EU-wide action can really benefit the consumer – let’s hope that the phone companies listen to Viviane Reding’s concerns and act accordingly, making the ‘mobility’ of our phones a little less costly!

A tribute to the civil servants, and to the Centre for European Reform

I missed Prince Charles's visit to European Parliament today, not just because I am not on that committee, but because I had a day in London meeting various officials and policy advisors from the Foreign office, Cabinet office and so on.

Those who claim that the government was cavalier in its negotiations about the Lisbon Treaty ought to see these officials at work. They are meticulous in knowing and analysing every detail of the treaty, looking at all the possible implications and advising ministers accordingly. They also know that the British government won on all its "red lines". The only thing is they can't say so, as civil servants, but must leave it to ministers to try to get the message across through a hostile media.

In the evening, I attended a packed 10th birthday celebration of the Centre for European Reform think tank. Not very many Tories - they don't really believe in reforming the EU - but many businessmen. A smattering of Labour MPs and peers, but also a few trade unionists. Good speech by David Miliband, looking to the future beyond treaty ratification, which will indeed be a welcome development. And as to the CER, plaudits all round for its contribution to debates on reforming Europe - which has certainly helped reform the EU (with the Reform Treaty the latest step), but which has not (yet) managed to change the way Europe is debated in Britain.

Referendum campaign still flagging

The Conservatives were struck another blow in their failing campaign for a referendum on the Reform Treaty. Their petition demanding a referendum on the Reform Treaty, and posted on the Downing Street petitions website by Tory MEP Geoffrey Van Orden, received only 4,057 signatures. This shows how little public backing they are gaining for David Cameron's calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty.

A tribute to the linguists

The European Parliament couldn't cope without its interpreters and translators, diligently rendering our best and worst prose into other languages. They are taken for granted most of the time, beavering away behind glass (interpreters at meetings - whom we can at least see) or at distance (translators of texts - whom we rarely meet), though the occasional mistake can give rise to much confusion. It is also not unknown for Members to blame the linguists for their own mistakes, or to get out of a tight corner ("I didn't really call you an XXX - honest - it must have been a mistake by the interpreter!").

But just how skillful a job it is has just been brought home to me again by looking at the translation of my own report on the Lisbon Treaty, especially the "Explanatory Statement", which is annexed to the motion for resolution as background and is not voted on by Parliament, standing as an informal explanatory briefing by the rapporteurs. I and my co-rapporteur, Inigo Mendez de Vigo MEP, with the assistance of José Luis Pacheco of the committee staff, had drafted this in French, as the easiest common language among the three of us, and I was slightly apprehensive about how it would be turned into English - would it sound odd, would there be political hostages to fortune, how would the style seem?

Reading words that stand in your own name, but you have not written in English, so not chosen the exact words, was bound to be hazardous for a potentially controversial political text.

As it turns out, the translators have done a wonderful job, sometimes even seeming to improve on the original, and certainly aware of many of the nuances. The only times I wince are the passages where the style is a bit too flowery for English - because that's the way we wrote them in French, in which just such a style can be normal. There are just a few passages where I would have chosen a different vocabulary, not because it is wrong, but because I know how some people will twist the meanings of words in political debates. But out of more than seventy pages of text, these are mercifully few and far between. Congratulations to the translators!

Labour's team for Yorkshire & Humber

I spent the weekend at the Labour Party's Yorkshire & Humber regional conference, listening to a whole host of ministers, MPs, councillors and party members talk about a wide range of issues.

One of the debates was about the EU’s responsibilty to regulate the free market so it works for Europe’s citizens and protects the most vulnerable, in terms of consumer protection, social legislation, the environment, fair trade, health and safety rules, and so on. The discussion once again showed the importance of such European legislation and the need for Britain to take a central role in shaping it.

After our discussion, the four people who, following lengthy internal parocedures in the region, will join myself and my colleague MEP Linda McAvan to make up Yorkshire & Humber’s Labour team for the 2009 European elections were revealed. While the order has yet to be determined (it will be by a one-member-one-vote ballot, which should drop through Labour Party members’ letterboxes later this week), Emma Hoddinott, Mahroof Hussain, David Bowe and Melanie Onn will join me and Linda as part of Labour’s team of six candidates. It will be a good team.

Reducing carbon emissions requires legislation and an end to the Strasbourg sessions

Last week's European Parliament vote to ban patio heaters has caught the attention of the press, with Eurosceptics jumping on the opportunity to attack the EU. While a ban of patio heaters would be a small step in tackling climate change, it would nevertheless be a significant one. A Green Barometer survey predicts that the number of patio heaters in the UK alone will rise to 2.3 million in the near future, with the amount of CO2 they emit the equivalent to that emitted by driving from Lands End to John O'Groats 200,000 times! The patio heater is a particularly wasteful appliance
as it uses most of its energy heating the open air, while the Energy Savings Trust research indicates that most are used largely in July and August - the warmest months of the year. Surely it is legitimate to debate whether they are worth the emissions?

Of course, this is not to say that patio heaters are the only, or worst, culprits. In fact the widely publicised attempt to ban carbon heaters is part of a larger set of suggestions put forward to the European Commission that includes restricting or phasing out the standby mode on electrical appliances. The Commission already has a timetable for increasing the energy efficiency for a wide range of appliances, including light bulbs and TV set-top boxes. In the long run, the EU's stated aim - agreed to by all member countries - is to reduce overall emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

In a recent Guardian /ICM poll, 78% of respondents stated that the environment was an important issue in their voting decision, while a Sunday Mirror/ICM survey ranked climate change behind only health and crime as an issue respondents were most worried about. Why then the negative responses? If people are serious about tackling climate change then legislation against the most wasteful carbon emitting products is a necessary step.

Of course calls for the EU to get its own house in order are completely justified. The European Parliament is forced against its will to travel to Strasbourg 12 times a year. The trip may not contribute much in the great scheme of the things but the point is that everyone must make changes to battle climate change. Banning patio heaters requires personal sacrifices, while ending this monthly migration would not even be a sacrifice as far as most MEPs are concerned.

A couple of links about the Reform Treaty

If you want some detailed objective analysis of the new treaty and you're in London on February 8th, Kings College London is holding a conference on the EU Reform Treaty.

The full programme is available here.

I'll also shamelessly point you towards my article in today's Yorkshire Post, which argues genuine Eurosceptics should be in favour of the new treaty.