FIFA will have to start listening to UEFA

Following their meeting in Sydney in the early hours of the morning it has been confirmed that FIFA will pursue Sepp Blatter's "6+5" idea, which seeks to limit the number of foreign players a football club can field.

Crucially the European countries have only agreed to this if it is within the limits of the law, and as I have mentioned on here before, Blatter's plan as it stands would be illegal in Europe, as it discriminates on ground of nationality.

Of course Blatter being Blatter, is quoted on the BBC website as saying, "If there is a law, a law can be amended" - an attitude many football fans will recognise all too well.

Fortunately, Blatter has had to pledge to work alongside Michel Platini on the issue and hopefully the UEFA President will be able to point out the benefiits of UEFA's much more sensible (and legal!) "home-grown players" rule. Under this UEFA rules, a third of a club's squad will have to have come from their youth academy and junior teams. Like 6+5, it wants clubs to rely less on buying in talent, but it does not discriminate gainst people because of their nationality. It will be an incentive for clubs to invest in youth training in their local community, but without discriminating against foreign kids.

In short, much more sensible! Which is why I back UEFA, not FIFA, on this one..

The true reasons behind the proposed new rules on Groups

It was not a surprise to see the Telegraph print this story on my proposal to raise the threshold needed to form a political group in the European Parliament, nor dress it up as a sinister plot to “eliminate Eurosceptics”.

My proposal, which was discussed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, was a response to concerns that, currently, just 20 MEPs (only 2 1/2% of members in the European Parliament), drawn from a fifth of the member states, can form a political "Group" and obtain significant extra resources such as staff and money.

My proposal is to raise the number of MEPs needed to form a group to 30 (4%), with a quarter of member states represented - still lower than the percentage required to form a Group in most national parliaments.

The Telegraph and some blogs have swallowed Nigel Farage's line that this is is a direct attack on UKIP as there are currently just 23 members in their Independence & Democracy Group. But my proposal, if adopted, would not come into effect until the next parliament. By then, UKIP and its allies will surely either have more seats (their view) reaching the new threshold, or fewer (my view) meaning they won't even qualify under the current rule. In any case, MEPs who do not sit in a Group are guaranteed all the normal parliamentary privileges and cannot be silenced.

Farage flatters himself that he and the pipsqueek remanents of UKIP are my target. No, the true purpose of the rule change is to diminish the chances of creating - and giving taxpayers money to - a neo-nazi style far-right Group. Already last year, we saw the debacle of the Independence Sovereignty & Tradition Group, when the far-right managed to cobble together 20 MEPs from a mixture of fascists, holocaust deniers and xenophobes (including Ashley Mote, elected as UKIP) to become eligible for a million euros of funding in 2007. The ramshackle nature of the group was exposed when they collapsed this year after several Romanian MEPs left it following deogatgory comments about Romanians from their colleague Alessandra Mussolini.

Maybe Nigel Farage supports giving money to neo-nazis, but I don't. Certainly, dressing up my proposal as an attempt by the two big Groups to squash the small ones is nonsense.

On the contrary, my proposals actually include a provision that would help small Groups. Previously, smaller groups could often be held hostage by a few MEPs or even individuals who know if they leave the group it would collapse. It was the former leader of UKIP's Group, Jens Peter Bonde, who drew my attention to this problem. I have attempted to address it in the way he suggested, by proposing that if an existing Group loses members and falls below the threshold of 30, they can continue to exist for two years. This would actually help smaller groups work better and give them more stability, as they would not have the fear of collapse continually dangled over them.

Time to reopen the euro debate

Ten years ago when 11 European countries agreed to freeze their exchange rates in preparation for a single currency, a number of sceptical economic correspondents predicted financial calamity. Then, when the euro was going through a difficult teething process, they were quick to deride it as a 'toilet currency'. That within ten years of its creation, the same economists are now anticipating that the euro will overtake the US dollar as the world's principle reserve currency, demonstrates the economic strength and stability created by the euro.

So, when will Britain (Europe's second largest economy) become a member? This question has, quite simply, dropped off the political radar in recent years, but EMU's 10th anniversary is surely no better a time to re-open the argument and question whether by staying out Britain is missing out. It is difficult to accurately estimate the damage to inward investment and job losses caused by our non-entry. However, companies ranging from US construction giants Caterpillar to car companies Toyota and Nissan have made it clear they will not increase or even maintain their investment in the UK while we intend to stay outside the single currency.

Steady inflation rates of a fraction over 2%, the lowest interest rates in a generation, the creation of 16 million new jobs in the eurozone, increase intra-area trade and a deeper, more integrated financial market are just some of the achievements that serve as a testament to the euro's success. The euro's transformation is no better illustrated than by the observation that, whereas in 2001 it accounted for 27% of the global financial pie, compared with 51% for the dollar, it now accounts for 45% of the global market compared to the dollar's 37%.

The next step for the single currency will be for world commodity prices to be fixed in euros rather than dollars, a development that would also strengthen the arguments for UK membership. At present, manufacturers in Britain and, indeed, the eurozone are hostages to fluctuations in the US economy that have nothing to do with our suppliers or our own economy. Having world commodity prices fixed in euros would transfer the US's current economic advantage to Europe.

That being said, European monetary union remains unfinished business in more ways than one, and it would be disingenuous to claim that monetary union has been a painless process. Several countries sweated under the initial strain of having interest rates set jointly through the European Central Bank. Moreover, with currency devaluation no longer a quick fix for their finance ministries, Spain and Italy (and no doubt others in the future) have to face up more quickly to structural adjustments to maintain the competitiveness of their respective economies.

But the case for monetary union is still strong. Indeed, as ex-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt put it, "who ever heard of a single market with 11 currencies", an argument that is pertinent now as it was back in the 1980s when he made it. With that in mind, lets re-open the argument in Britain.

Jonathan Roberts in Thirsk & Malton

It’s always interesting to see how my former assistants progress and I was particularly pleased to see Jonathan Roberts selected as Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Thirsk and Malton.

Jonathan, who’s from Thirsk, worked in my constituency office for just over a year and is well versed in criss-crossing north Yorkshire, which is a good job because the Thirsk and Malton constituency goes right from Skipton-on-Swale to Filey on the east coast!

He has just launched his website which you can view at www.jonathanroberts.org.uk

On the subject of elections I suppose it would be remiss not to mention Crewe and Nantwich, though there is very little which hasn’t already been said. However, if Labour can go another 30 years without losing a by-election to the Conservatives we’ll be doing alright!

Tories and Lib Dems follow our lead

Interesting to see the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have finally followed Labour’s lead and demanded that their MEPs produce receipts for all their office expenses.

Labour MEPs have had to provide receipts for their expenses and have their accounts approved by an independent auditor for nearly a decade. It’s a simple enough measure but I’m stunned its taken the Tories and Lib Dems this long. Hopefully more parties across in the European Parliament will now demand the same standards.

The party which have been under the most scrutiny for their MEPs expenses, UKIP, have not. Should we really be surprised?

The Conservatives are still the nasty party in Europe

Cameron's empty claim that his Tory party are the real defenders of social justice and equality rings particularly hollow in Europe.

In 2004, the Commission promised to draft a proposal for a "horizontal" directive under Article 13 of the Treaty to combat discrimination in access to goods amd services in the European market on the grounds of sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. At present, only discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or ethnicity is covered by existing directives and Parliament’s report called for Commission to "complete the package of anti-discrimination legislation". Such legislation would prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination in all areas that fall under EU competence. Yesterday, the Tory MEPs (with the honourable exceptions of Christopher Beazley and John Bowis) voted against a report by Liberal Democrat Liz Lynne which called for such legislation.

That the Conservatives would effectively vote for a hierarchy of discrimination shows that whilst they may talk the language of social justice and compassion actually doing something about it is a completely different matter.

It is the same in other areas too. The vast majority of the Conservatives (who have just one female MEP don't forget) have consistently voted against women's rights and aside from Caroline Jackson, didn't even support a measure to combat domestic violence.

Cameron of course kickstarted his cuddly image by going green yet Roger Helmer, their representative on the climate change committee, continues to denounce any attempts to battle climate change.

Worse still if you ever glance at "Conservative Home" or other Tory blogs, a lot of the MEPs are citicised for not being right wing enough!

Finally, real progress for agency workers

I was delighted to hear today that the Government has reached an agreement with the TUC and the CBI on equal treatment for agency workers. This agreement, which would give agency workers equal treatment with permanent workers after 12 weeks, breaks a six year deadlock.

This proposed European directive has caused a great deal of controversy between Government, unions and industry. Of course, temporary agency work contributes to a dynamic and flexible modern economy and can often be a bridge for long term unemployed to get back in the labour market. But agency workers should not be treated as second-class workers and agencies should not be able to distort the labour market by undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers.

Indeed, support for the Temporary Agency Workers directive was one of the key planks of the 2004 Warwick Agreement between Government and unions and the impasse in resolving its future has caused great frustration for unions.

However, this agreement at UK level is not the end of the story. A further agreement will have to be reached in the Council of Ministers, hopefully at the next meeting of Employment ministers on the 9th and 10th of June. The directive will then return to the European Parliament (which had supported equal treatment for day one at first reading) for second reading, with a view to hitting the statute book in advance of next year’s European elections.

EU legislation on agency workers will establish one common set of rules for the common market and remove the possibility of having a multitude of divergent legislation from different Member States that would still leave the problem of transnational agencies undercutting wages as well as creating legal uncertainty. Domestic legislation would create as many problems as it would solve and today’s announcement demonstrates that Government’s priority is, rightly, to agree a compromise at European level.

Moreover, the debate on agency workers has demonstrated that will be clear dividing lines on European social legislation between Labour and the Conservatives at the next election. The Conservatives have already promised to restore Britain’s opt-out from the Social Chapter and bitterly oppose this directive which will protect some of the most vulnerable workers in the labour market. In contrast, today’s agreement shows that the Government is committed to a social Europe in which workers rights and social protection stand alongside economic growth and enterpreneurship.

Some interesting links

I took part in this week's Record Europe in which we discuss the relationship between sport and the European law. You can catch in on the BBC Parliament's channel or watch it on the internet here. The debate starts just under five minutes into the programme.

Another link well worth taking a look at is Nosemonkey's EUtopia post on the media and why he thinks that he was shortlisted for UACES-Reuters Reporting Europe Award for his blog on the EU. Far from being chuffed with being up for the award Nosemonkey worries he was shortlisted because of the distinct lack of any journalism from the major papers on the EU. It's a thoughtful piece that all too easily highlights the UK media's weakness of reporting the EU and the ignorence this then leads to.

Two other bloggers, Jon Worth and Jan Seifert, have set up a website which is campaigning for just one president of the EU, called Who Do I Call, in tribute to Henry Kissinger's infamous question "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?". It's online at www.whodoicall.eu and argues that appointing the same person to be President of the Commission and President of the European Council would offer greater democracy and efficiency while obviously offering one clear figurehead of the EU to the rest of the world.

The likes of Wise mean reform of expenses is essential

Anyone who flicked through the News of the World on Sunday will have seen the report on various MEPs - none of them Labour - who allegedly abuse their expenses.

The one who featured the most prominently was UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who was even caught bragging to an undercover reporter about the amount of money he says he makes from his expenses. You can read the story here but perhaps what is most embarrassing is his attitude which, for a man who remains under investigation by the anti-fraud office OLAF, is one of breathtaking arrogance.

The News of the World highlights a loophole in the European Parliament’s rules which is exploited by some people who claim the maximum amount they can for plane tickets (which is fully flexible economy tickets) but actually travel on a budget airline to Charleroi airport 50 miles from Brussels, pocketing the difference. Wise told the reporter: "When I fly Ryanair I say 'Thank you very much!' I could actually put the Ryanair ticket in and just get that back— but that would be denying me a legally, well I say legally, a genuinely available funding."

So despite appearing to acknowledge what he is doing is wrong he boasts about the amount of money he is claiming while admitting he doesn’t have a clue what he is supposed to do as an MEP. What a shower!

The good news is that the particular loophole Tom Wise is so fond of will be closed shortly but this is not enough. Rarely do I find myself nodding in agreement with the News of the World but their demand that "every member should provide receipts for everything they claim" is a must.

Of course, the News of the World did not mention that every Labour MEP is already required to have their office and staff expenses audited and approved by an independent auditor each year and I can see no reason why this isn’t replicated by UKIP and other parties.

It is a simple measure that would go some way to repairing the damage caused by the greedy minority like Wise.

Flood-hit areas should recieve all £110million

The decision of the Treasury to pocket nearly £80million of the £110million allocated to Britain from the EU’s Solidarity Fund following last summer’s floods, is regretable.

Unfortunately the issue is further clouded by Conservative attempts to blame Tony Blair and some newspapers proclaiming a “Brussels snatch”.

As the press release from Local Government Minister John Healey explains, the reason only £31million will go to the areas hit by last year’s flooding is to do with the way the UK rebate works.

The rebate refunds to Britain roughly two-thirds of the deficit between the annual total of EU monies raised in the UK and of EU expenditure in the UK. As a result, any extra sums spent in Britain, such as the solidarity fund grant, reduce the UK's deficit. This in turn reduces the size of the eventual rebate by a sum equivalent to two thirds of the extra expenditure in question.

So in short, the Treasury is retaining such a huge chunk of money meant for the flood-hit areas so that it will not lose out when Britain's rebate is calculated.

Throughout the year there will be many issues that effect the amount Britain receives in the rebate and this is of course inevitable but I find it astonishing that the Treasury is guarding against a dip in Britain’s rebate at the expense of hard-hit flood victims and their devestated towns. After all, when extra money comes to farmers through agricultural spending or to poorer regions through structural funding, it does not retain the money in this way.

In our region Hull, Doncaster and Sheffield amongst others all suffered severely from the flooding and I voted for this money in the European Parliament to help them recover. The full £110million should be spent on the areas affected, not hoarded by a mandarin in the Treasury.

You can read my letter to John Healey by clicking here.

Working to build a bright future for sport

The Mavrommatis report, which is Parliament's response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport, was debated and voted through in the European Parliament today.

It’s a relatively tame report, in response to an equally tame White Paper but following the May Day rubbish some of the more excitable tabloids printed about a couple of transnational maps being an EU plot to abolish Britain, the likes of Chris Heaton Harris and Tom Wise lined up to accuse the EU of trying to hijack the governance of sport and describe it as “another Brussels power grab” courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty.

What the Lisbon Treaty does is precisely the opposite as it recognises the specificity of sport, i.e. that existing laws on employment, copyright, media rights and so on, which unavoidably affect professional sport, should be interpreted and applied in a way which takes account of the needs of sport. The most obvious example of this is the collective sale of television rights could be thought to contradict EU competition policy, but is clearly in the interest of fair sporting competition.

Indeed, the collective sale of television rights is one measure that the report does recommend. As this football season has once again proved leagues across Europe are dominated by one, two or maybe three teams and the problem will only get worse without the collective sale of television rights. The next few years should prove interesting (or a lot less so as the case will probably be) as the consequences of Barcelona and Real Madrid securing their own massive television deal becomes clear. Compared to the Premier League, Spain has been relatively exciting over the last 15 years, with Atletico Madrid, Deportivo and Valencia all winning a title while a host of others competed strongly against the dominance of Barca and Real Madrid. Whether it will continue to be so remains to be seen but, with the balance now so heavily weighted in favour of the two wealthiest clubs, it seems highly unlikely.

Staying on the subject of television, the report also calls on EU countries to draw together a list of sporting events which should be shown on free-to-air television. In Britain events like the World Cup, European Championship (in football) and the Olympics are protected but other events like Test matches and the Ryder Cup are only available on subscription television.

While the money that is paid for these events is important to the respective sports, there is a bigger issue of making them available to all. Viewing figures hit an extraordinary 8million during the last Ashes series in England and no matter how exciting they are in 2009 there is simply no chance that the same number of people will be able to enjoy the next series.

Finally, the report endorses UEFA's rules on home-grown players which will require clubs competing in the Champions League and UEFA cup next season to have at least eight home-grown players (trained either by the club or in the same league) in their 25-man squads. This is a realistic measure that will force clubs to invest in and develop talent in youth academies rather than just outspending their rivals in the transfer market, whilst also respecting EU employment law (unlike FIFA's six plus five proposals).

In short, getting away from the usual hyperbole spouted by Eurosceptics, the Mavrommatis report is a useful contribution to the debate on the future of sport and the way that we as MEPs can interpret and frame EU law in a way that safeguards the future of sport.

CBI should stand up for Europe at home and abroad

In the British debates on Europe, the CBI often keeps its head below the parapet. For example, during the debate surrounding the Lisbon Treaty, they were happy with the UK protocol relating to the Charter of Rights but refused to publicly endorse the treaty despite getting what they wanted.

But at European level, with its sister organisations from across Europe, it's less reticent. Their recent publication, "Successful companies for a successful Europe", comments that "ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is important to ensure it [the EU] remains operational".

It goes on to state that European companies, "want to convey a political vision to strengthen Europe by pursuing its integration process" adding that "Europe is the right dimension for addressing tomorrow's big challenges in trade, energy, environment or immigration, and for creating the best conditions for economic growth".

It also points out that:

*In 1957 the six founding countries of the EEC represented 15% of global GDP. Today, even with the rapid economic growth in India and China, the EU accounts for 20% of total GDP.

*The EU is the largest economic market in the world and the largest exporter.

*The EU-27 is characterised by "wealth creation created by European companies, high level social protection, political stability and strong democratic institutions".

Let's hope the CBI breaks its vow of silence on Europe by saying this more loudly at home, not just abroad.

Cameron talks up the importance of Europe

Having spent the first 18 months of his leadership appeasing his Eurosceptic wing by pledging to withdraw from the centre-right European People's Party and being the only non-fascist right-wing party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron appears to have had a road to Damascus style conversion.

In the words of Cameron, during an interview for the Yorkshire Post:

"I don’t want to leave the European Union and I'll tell you why. This is a trading nation. Yorkshire relies on traded goods and on businesses which can trade all over the world and particularly in Europe. We export more per head of the population than America, Japan or other countries. We are a trading nation and Europe is a very important market for us. If we are not in the European Union, we would not be able to have a say over what the rules of the single market are. That is the primary reason for being a member of the European Union."

All pretty sensible stuff, and light years away from the reactionary nonsense and baseless scare-stories trotted out by himself and his front-bench colleagues over the Lisbon Treaty. However, it is unlikely that such an approach will find favour with the likes of John Redwood, Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory.

When I give talks about the reasons for our EU membership to constituents and visitors to the Parliament, I often point to three sets of reasons: the idealistic, pragmatic and selfish. Cameron has at least taken up the latter. Though, even that will be too much for his right-wing MPs.

Local elections

Parts of Yorkshire bucked the national trend in last week's local elections. There were no Labour losses in Leeds, for instance. But there is no doubt that it was a bad result for Labour. Of course, local elections, like European elections, tend to be dominated by national issues, and in this case the abolition of the 10p tax band featured prominently.

Although there is some logic to abolishing this band (the lower rate applies to a proportion of the income of all income tax payers, meaning that 85% of its value accrues to taxpayers of higher bands - money which could be better used to allieviate poverty by targeting it directly at lower incomes through tax credits and benefits), the policy was not thought through enough in terms of how it would be perceived. Perception is political reality, and a highly visible reduction in take-home pay for lower band taxpayers does not match the sometimes less visible compensations - and not all losers were compensated anyway.

Of course, Labour can point to its record over eleven years which has boosted low incomes through steady economic growth, near full employment, the minimum wage, tax credits, fuel allowances and so on, which far outweigh the effect of the 10p rate. But the opposition were bound to make the most of the headline without looking at the wider context. This should have been spotted and rectified earlier, but at least the government has promised to do so now, refreshingly admitting that (like all governments) it made a mistake. Interestingly, none of the opposition parties are calling for a reintroduction of the 10p rate, but they have certainly managed to exploit the change to the full.