Encouraging news in the battle against directory scams

Some good bits of news about the battle against the European City Guide and its various dubious guises.

The European Commissioner for consumer protection, Meglena Kuneva, has written to me stating that should the number of complaints against directory scams not decline then she will step-up her investigation into possible actions the Commission can take. So, any people who have been victims of the directory scams, anywhere in Europe, should make the effort to register their complaints to the Commission (as well as any national authorities) so the extent of the problem is made clear. Letters should be addressed to Commissioner Kuneva, European Commission, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels.

My Labour colleague Arlene McCarthy, who chairs Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, has also joined the campaign and is asking to extend consumer protection law to business-to-business transactions, something which would help protect victims of the scams.

I have also heard today that the European Parliament’s Petitions Committee has now started on its report into directory scams and, beacause of the delays, they are keen to press on quickly with their investigation, with a meeting with victims and campaigners against the scams set for May. Simon Busutil MEP is still the rapporteur and evidence against directory scams and any suggestions for action should also be sent to him at the European Parliament, Brussels.

Realistically the problem of directory scams is not likely to be solved soon but there is now at least a consensus building that the scams are a blight on small businesses across Europe and it is an issue that the EU can help deal with

Tories align themselves with an unlikely bunch

Now that national parliaments across Europe are debating the Treaty of Lisbon, the unholy alliances of hard left and far right that are attempting to block it stands revealed.

The motley crew includes Jorg Häider's Freedom Party in Austria, the Flemish separatists Vlaams Belang, the Northern League in Italy and the Bulgarian Attak party.. These parties all fall into various shades of the extreme right - xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and/or anti-immigration.

On the other extreme, the remaining Communist parties across Europe have voted 'No', while the German Die Linke partei made up of Oskar Lafontaine's defectors from the SPD and the remnants of the communist PDS party (still enjoying electoral success in parts of East Germany) has also opposed ratification. Interestingly enough, Sinn Fein is the only major Irish party to oppose the treaty. I never thought that Sinn Fein and the Tory party would line up as close allies!

Despite Cameron's attempts to position himself as a moderate conservative, the Tories are the only main centre-right party in Europe to be opposed to the treaty. Every main social democrat, Christian democrat, liberal and green party across the EU has supported the Lisbon Treaty.

All of which highlights just how out of touch Cameron is with mainstream thinking and how isolated Britain would be if the Tories were to win the next election. As Philip Stephen's put it in today's Financial Times,

"As far as abroad is concerned, as things stand Mr Cameron's first act would be to start an acrimonious and unwinnable fight to overturn the treaty of Lisbon and withdraw Britain from the European Union's social chapter. That, not to put too fine a point on it, would be barmy."

BBC's report on MEP's expenses unbalanced

Many of you will have seen the lead item on the BBC news Tuesday night on the subject of MEP's expenses. I and most of my colleagues didn't, as we were in Strasbourg at the time.

The BBC interviewed me for this item, because I have published a comparative table of all the expenses and allowances provided to MPs and MEPs. The BBC's Mark Mardell asked me to describe the system, respond to questions on it and cover also the issue of governments obliging the Parliament to meet once a month in Strasbourg.

In the end, they didn't use one second of this interview, presumably because I was boringly factual and didn't reveal any salacious gossip or make any wild claims about abuse. I gather they took a instead a Conservative and a Lib Dem MEP (and Dan Hannan and Chris Davies are not even regarded by their party colleagues as representing mainstream opinion in their parties) denouncing the system and calling for further reforms, and my Labour colleague Gary Titley defending the right of MEPs to employ their spouses provided they are doing a proper job, for which they are qualified, that the pay is commensurate and that it is declared and transparent.

This, of course, made it look as though the Lib Dems and Conservatives were for further reform and Labour was against it. Yet the employment of spouses was not an issue dividing the three parties, who all accept it under correct conditions, and anyway is not the most important issue in the reform debate.

Nowhere did they point out that up to now Labour is the only one of the three parties to require its MEPs to have their accounts audited annually by an independent auditor to ensure that all monies have been spent properly and in accordance with the rules. In other words, Labour MEPs can claim to have more, not less, propriety than the others - the opposite of the impression given by the news item, according to people who saw it.

Nor did they point out that the Parliament has not chosen to sit in Strasbourg once a month - most members heartily agree that this is silly - but the national governments who oblige it to do so.

The report featured a decision not to publish an internal auditors report, again without mentioning that all three British parties voted for such publication.

Shame that the BBC was, tabloid-style, seduced by the attractions of sensationalism. Their journalists - Mark Mardell and his colleagues - had gone out of the way to get a range of material, including the boring facts, but the producers in London chose to use only that which would titillate rather than inform.

Hoping for a ban on seal products

On Wednesday, Parliament welcomed a very special guest to speak to the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Sheryl Fink, speaking on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), had travelled all the way from her native Canada to drum up support for an EU-wide ban on the import of all seal products into Europe.

New regulations implemented by the Canadian authorities, supposedly to make the Canadian seal hunts more "humane", have done little to increase the welfare of the seals. Most hunters are ignoring the regulations and the authorities seem unwilling to take action. Indeed, the group was shown a highly distressing video filmed by IFAW proving that seals were not killed quickly or humanely.

The Eurosceptic Tory MEP Roger Helmer, who was in the audience, attempted to pass Sheryl Fink's presentation off merely as a "slick" gimmick from the animal welfare lobby. Helmer asked what effect a ban on the seal hunt would have on those who relied on the trade to make a living, and what effect would a ban have on Canada’s fish stocks. If Helmer hadn't left immediately after asking his questions, he might have heard the answers!

Canada's seal hunt is not economically viable. The C$11million industry would not survive without the subsidies paid by the Canadian government. In fact, no hunter relies on the trade for a living - the hunt only makes each hunter around £1000 extra income per year. It is merely an extra bit of pocket money for them. Add to that the fact there is no evidence that seals have any significant adverse effect on fish stocks, and there appears very little justification in continuing the inhumane seal hunt, and hopefully, an EU ban on seal products will finally see an end to it.

Tories scrape the barrel on St George's Day

I had always thought that the media 'silly season' was in August, but the Tories seem to be trying to bring it forward a few months with this nonsense that was picked up by some very lazy journalists in the Sun, Mail and Express.

In what can only be described as a deeply cynical attempt to get some media coverage on St George's Day, the Conservatives have shamelessly recycled a story they used two years ago claiming that the Government is colluding with an EU plot to create transnational regions in order to create a united European state.

Sadly, it seems that a few journalists were too lazy to check the facts and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

A quick internet search shows that the Sun and the Mail ran virtually identical stories in September 2006. Indeed, it looks as though the Conservative press officers were so lazy that they couldn't be bothered to make up a new quote for their Regional Affairs spokesman Eric Pickles! In September 2006, Pickles was quoted as saying "Eurocrats could literally wipe Britain off the map". Today he says "Gordon Brown literally wants to wipe Britain off the map". I don't think I'm alone in sensing a bit of déja vu here!

On the substance (what little exists), the Tories' claims refer to a map of Europe used for the INTERREG programme which is, as the acronym suggests, an inter-regional structural funds programme designed to help regions in different countries work together in order to maximise funding opportunities and tackle common problems. For the purpose of the programme, the map defines a "North Sea" region, an "Atlantic" region, a "Transmanche" region, a "North Atlantic" region and an "Ireland/Wales" region.

But, of course, Hartlepool and Hull do share a number of common problems and interests with the likes of Zeebrugge and Rotterdam - they are ports, share the same stretch of water and have similar environmental concerns. Indeed, inter-regional co-operation is not a conspiracy - it is common sense and a map showing which regions of Europe are working with each other is no more a threat to Britain than is a geological map showing both the Kent coast and Northern France as chalk.

Of all the euromyths I've come across, this has got to be up with the most scurrilous.

Anyway, let's hear a few bars of Jerusalem! Happy St George's Day everybody!

Tories in Lords sing treaty's praises

The debate continues this afternoon in the House of Lords on the Lisbon Treaty when the European Union Amendment Bill enters the Committee stage of the debate; the bill will be discussed by the whole house in six separate sittings over the coming months.

In its Second Reading at the beginning of April, some 75 Peers were listed to speak on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty. Unlike in the Commons, a large number of Conservative peers spoke in favour of the new treaty, including several previous Cabinet Ministers.

Among them was Lord Howe, previous Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister under the Thatcher administration. Speaking during the debate, Lord Howe called for Britain to continue to exert an "increasingly effective participation in the European Union" stating that the Treaty "is an important step in that direction for the enhancement of British influence". The Lord, who was Thatcher's longest serving Cabinet Minister, went on to criticise the Conservative Party's calls for a referendum stating, "I cannot bring myself to say a word in support of one."

Lord Brittain, a former Home Secretary, also spoke against his party's position on the Treaty: "I am not only very much in favour of approving the Treaty but I am also strongly opposed to a referendum on this issue." Lord Brittain continued saying that the comparisons made between the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are fair and paying particular heed to the numerous benefits for Britain and the rest of Europe under the new treaty. He also praised the treaty for the necessary changes it makes to ease the efficiency and functioning of the enlarged Union.

Lord Tughendhat, Member of the European Commission from 1977 to 1981, criticised the Tory line: "Sadly, I believe that the Conservative Party's present position on the treaty is not only contrary to the national interest but to its own interest."

Lord Jones, who was a previous junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, also criticised the Conservative position: "[The Tories] favour a referendum because they think that they would win and, in doing so, would advance a position that is at best hostile to the Union and is frequently a flimsy cover for an eventual move to withdraw."

There seems to be a generational shift in the Conservative Party. The more experienced Tories are more pro-European and in favour of the treaty compared to the new more hasty Eurosceptic generation who unthinkingly follow the media-led euroscepticism. Do none of the younger Tories have the courage to stand out against the trend and think for themselves?

The return of Berlusconi

I was very disappointed to see the election (for a third time) of Silvio Berlusconi, this time with a sizeable majority in both Italian houses of parliament. In contrast to last month's successful re-election of Jose Zapatero's PSOE party in Spain, this is a serious setback, not just for the left, but for democrats in general.

Berlusconi uniquely combines economic power (reportedly Italy's richest man), media power (owning the main private national TV channels and several newspapers) and political power. He has unashamedly used the latter to help the former, adopting laws during his previous stint as Prime Minister to help his media, insurance and construction interests and to give himself immunity from some of the corruption charges he faced in the courts.

He even owns one of Italy's most successful football clubs, AC Milan, currently European Champions having been allowed in last year's Champions League against the wishes of UEFA who were powerless to ban them despite the fact that they had been found guilty of bribing referees - something Leeds United fans will have something to say about given the referee's role in AC Milan's victory over them in the 73 European Cup Winners' Cup final - as will Liverpool fans given the way the referee whistled an early end to last year's Champions League final when Liverpool were on the verge of equalising.

Berlusconi is often portrayed in the UK media as an almost lovable gaffe-prone buffoon, but his election does have serious consequences that could reverberate around Europe. Berlusconi's main allies include members of the xenophobic Northern League, which campaigns on an anti-immigration ticket and for independence for "Padania" (a name they coined for Northern Italy). Having gained 8% of the vote, the League is in a strong bargaining position and will have seats in government.

At EU level, Berlusconi also has form, notoriously comparing Socialist group leader Martin Schultz to a Nazi commandant during a debate in the European Parliament. In 2004, he attempted to impose Rocco Buttiglione as Italy's nominee for the Commission, where he was envisaged as Commissioner for Justice despite his views on the role of women and on homophobia, causing a major political row and his rejection by the European Parliament. He was replaced by Franco Frattini, who is now likely to return to Rome as foreign minister and the nomination of his successor will be highly politically sensitive, especially if Berlusconi expects him or her to succeed to Frattini's Justice and Home Affairs portfolio. Any nomination must be agreed by Commission President Barroso and must appear before the European Parliament for a confirmation hearing, so watch this space if there is a controversial nominee.

Six + five will = legal chaos in football

With his customary lack of regard for political reality, FIFA president Sepp Blatter is apparently intent on pushing through his ill-conceived proposals to force football clubs to have quotas on foreign players. The proposals, commonly referred to as the 'six plus five' rule would force clubs to field at least six players from their own country, and will be voted on at FIFA's annual congress in Sydney next month.

Notwithstanding the fight that Blatter faces to get national football associations to agree (he needs 75% support of the 208 national associations eligible to vote), this idea would fall foul of EU employment law, in particular, rules on the free movement of workers. Indeed, if the 'six plus five' is adopted, it is anticipated that it would lead to a plethora of legal disputes, on the grounds that it would see discrimination against players on the grounds of their nationality.

FIFA's 'bull in a china shop' tactics are in marked contrast to the approach taken by UEFA on the same issue. UEFA continues to work alongside the European Parliament and the Commission to get backing for its 'home grown players' rule, which requires clubs competing in European competitions to have a quota of players who have spent at least three years in a team's youth development set-up. Next season, clubs must have at least eight home-grown players in their 25-man squads, a realistic measure that forces clubs to develop their talent in youth academies rather than relying on being able to outspend their rivals in the transfer market, but also respects EU law.

In contrast, Blatter's misguided strategy seems to be an exercise in confrontation rather than a constructive attempt to safeguard the future of football.

Commission set to propose ban on seal products

Following a lengthy campaign from animal welfare lobbyists, the European Commission has revealed it is planning to propose a ban on seal products within the EU.

EU Observer has reported that Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, plans to propose a ban on fur if a country cannot prove it has been obtained in a humane way.

The proposal should fly through the parliament if the Written Directive calling for a ban on the import, export and sale of seal products is anything to go by. Back in September 2006 it was signed by a record number of MEPs and as such became the position of the parliament.

The article suggests that Dimas has no plans to call for an outright ban but wants to ensure that any seals culled are done so quickly and cleanly. His main intention, it would appear, is to help stop the practice of skinning seals while they are still alive.

Some will be disappointed that the plans do not go further but it is a start and, should it be approved, will help drive up standards and eliminate the very worst aspects of the cull.

It is also an example of how EU citizens can play a part in influencing legislation. The campaign for a ban on seal products came from animal welfare charities and lobbyists and was driven by the sheer weight of mail many MEPs received on the issue. With the European Parliament’s support the case for a ban was strengthened and the European Commission has now responded with these early proposals, which will hopefully improve the welfare of thousands of seals.

The truth about migrants and crime

An interesting if wholly unsurprising report from the Police confirms that migrants to the UK from eastern Europe are not responsible for waves of crime.

As you would expect, levels of crime from eastern European migrants are in line with the rate of crime of the general population.

You can read in more detail about the report on the Guardian and Telegraph websites.

Of course there is one set of people who will be astonished by this news, Daily Mail readers. While researching this blog I couldn’t find a mention of the report on the Daily Mail’s website anywhere, a paper that has previously claimed that eastern European migrants are responsible for one in 10 crimes.

But I wanted to be sure so searched through the Daily Mail's site via Google for mentions of “Immigrants” (you can do it like this). There are thousands upon thousands of hits, none of them mentioning that migrants are in no way responsible for waves of crimes!

Edit on April 17:

It seems the Mail were just a little slow on the uptake. Instead of a screaming front page headline the story is dumped on page 12 of Thursday's paper. Incredibly, and without a hint of irony, James Slack's analysis piece asked, "Who claimed there was a migrant crimewave in the first place?"

And if you think that's astonishing, how about the Express who defied logic and all the evidence to the contrary by plastering Thursday's front page with "IMMIGRANTS BRING MORE CRIME" before going on to quote the report which said, "the evidence does not support theories of a large-scale crime wave generated through migration."

In between the bluster, the blind prejudice and underlying hatred, the Express did find one rise in crime which featured migrants in the report. It was a "huge surge in the exploitation of migrants."

Eurosceptics target Ireland

A few months ago UKIP leader Nigel Farage trumpeted on his blog that the Independence and Democracy group (that his UKIP MEPs are the main part of) had decided to "donate a substantial sum of money" to the Irish "No" campaign for the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

At one level, it is amusing to see UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", trying to meddle in a referendum campaign in another country.

However, at another level, this is a serious matter and potentially illegal. The rules governing donations for referendum campaigns in Ireland are very clear. Donations are illegal if they fall into the following categories:

"A donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland" or,

"A donation from a body corporate or unicorporated body of persons which does not keep an office in the island of Ireland from which one or more of its principle activities is directed".

Of course, UKIP knows this and will no doubt try to keep their donations quiet or find an indirect route to channel their money. The well-heeled eurosceptics from across Europe are targeting Ireland. Anyone who gets wind of such donations should inform the Irish Commission on Standards in Public Office, the body charged with making sure that the referendum is fair and that Ireland's rules on spending - which gives equal amounts of public money to both sides - are not subverted.

Bushill-Matthews fights a Euromyth

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that a Tory, Philip Bushill-Matthews, MEP has written to the Birmingham Post to rebut a Eurosceptic myth about transport policy. Normally stridently Eurosceptic, Bushill-Matthews rightly points out that a driver whose vehicle is registered in another EU country can evade prosecution for traffic offences in the UK because of the difficulty in verifying his/her home address. Common EU rules could be part of the solution to this problem.

I wonder what Dan Hannan (the Conservatives' chief myth-maker in Europe) thinks of his colleague's efforts!

The trend of grandiose titles

As next year's European election approaches, I am amused to see that some of my colleagues are prone to give themselves grand titles. I see that Edward Mcmillan-Scott refers to himself as "Britain's senior MEP". If he means the longest-serving member, he isn't: Bill Newton Dunn was first elected in 1979 and Stephen Hughes, Caroline Jackson David Martin, Glyn Ford and James Elles have all, like Edward, been in the European Parliament since 1984. If he means that he is an august former leader of the Conservative MEPs, he is one of four still in the Parliament (Kirkhope, Evans, Newton Dunn) as their in-fighting tends to oust their leader every two or three years. If he means he is one of the 14 Vice Presidents, he is not the only one, as Diana Wallis is also a Vice President.

Talking of Diana, she in turn has referred to herself as the "first woman Vice President" which is patently incorrect - there have been dozens. She is not even the first British woman VP as Lady Elles was one back in the 1980s.

Watch out for more imaginative descriptions as the elections approach!

Annotated treaties on my website

For anyone still interested in the differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, I now have a consolidated version of the treaties on my website, which has been annotated by Peadar ó Broin at the Irish Institute of International and European Affairs.

The whole text is colour coded so you can identify which parts of the text have been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, which parts are from previous treaties and importantly which parts were in the Constitution but have been dropped from the Lisbon Treaty.

While the consolidated text still weighs in at a hefty 386 pages long, it will certainly be a useful tool for academics and specialists, while just a quick glance at it proves that there are plenty of differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution.

Click to read.

The Record Europe and parliamentry scrutiny

I'm on this week's edition of the BBC's Record Europe with the Chair of the Commons EU Scrutiny commitee, Michael Connarty MP and a Danish MEP, Dan Jorgensen. We were discussing how to improve national parliamentry scrutiny of EU legislation.

You can watch the whole programme on this subject (we come in at the end) online by clicking here of if you have digital it will be on the BBC Parliament channel once a day all this week.

Media ignores Lords report on treaty

The excellent House of Lords report on the Lisbon Treaty, which I mentioned last week, was also referenced by Peter Preston in this week's Observer.

He noted, that the press coverage of this report was meagre to say the least.

The Mail, Telegraph and Express all failed to acknowledge its existence but more surprisingly Preston couldn't even find coverage from the BBC, giving the lie to those who claim it is pro-European. The Guardian covered it briefly and Peter Riddell went into a little more detail on it in an opinion piece for the Times.

Always quick to give ample coverage to shrill, sensationalist and highly inaccurate Eurosceptic claims about the Treaty, most of our media just ignores an authoritative, detailed analysis by an expert committee of our national parliament.

Miliband builds on government's increasingly pro-European stance

Patrick Wintour focused on David Miliband's Mansion House speech in yesterday's Guardian, suggesting the government is entering into a new pro-European era, following the Lisbon Treaty’s smooth path through the Commons.

Miliband is arguing that rather than being a threat to the UK's foreign policy or economy, a strong EU will enhance both as it increases our links with countries within and outside the EU.

Wintour is right to assert that the government is becoming increasingly braver with regards to actually talking about Europe, something it has sometimes been reluctant to do in the past. Wintour mentions Gordon Brown's recent visit to Brussels but at Labour's Spring Conference he also made it clear that it is only within the EU that Britain can achieve its objectives on climate change, development, trade and security – all areas where he noted Europe was leading the way.

As Denis MacShane has said before all this suggests that Europe has once again become a major dividing line between the parties, and crucially it is one that works to Labour’s advantage.

Stubb made Finland's new Foreign Minister

Following on swiftly from Jens Peter Bonde’s announcement that he will step down in 2009, it has now been revealed that Alexander Stubb will resign as an MEP with immediate effect to become Finland’s Foreign Minister.

While Bonde was one of the longest serving MEPs, Stubb, who sits in the EPP group, was only elected in 2004 but swiftly made an impact with his never ending enthusiasm, championing of the EU and his desire to see Britain really engage more with the EU (his wife is from Britain).

Stubb quickly became one of the most recognisable faces around Parliament and his website still gives you some insight into how he doesn’t follow the nerdish stereotype attributed to some of us on the Constitutional Affairs committee.

I’m sure Alex will do an excellent job in his new role and I’m confident he will not make the same mistake as his predecessor who was forced to quit after the Finnish papers discovered he sent 200 texts to a member of the Scandinavian Dolls erotic dance troupe, most of which were apparently quite keen to forge international relations of some sort or another.

Lords debate on treaty kicks off today

The House of Lords begins today its debates on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Anyone wanting a good, detailed and dispassionate analysis of the treaty would be rewarded by looking at the Report of the Lords EU Committee (here and here which goes through the treaty in considerable detail making an analysis of what impact it is likely to have.

Eurosceptics won't like it. Their views were given a good hearing by the Lords, who took evidence from Open Europe and several other anti-Europeans, but the Lords don't seem to have been impressed by their arguments.

I too gave evidence to the Lords and am pleased to see over 30 references in the first 80 pages of their report to documents I have written or to the oral hearing they held with me.

I am confident the that there will be at least as clear a majority for the treaty in the Lords as there was in the elected Commons, even if the minority opposing it will get the lion's share of the publicity to the extent that the media covers their debates.

Leon Brittan's article in today's Times is also well worth a read.