Sunday sceptics praise EU legislation

It was pleasantly surprising to see stories in several of the more eurosceptic Sunday papers giving a favourable write up to proposed European legislation.

The Sunday Telegraph praises the proposed EU cross-border enforcement rules of speeding and parking fines. The inability of British authorities to be able to trace foreign drivers costs us £10m per year in unpaid fines from around 180,000 offences. These proposals will enable police to chase foreign transgressors, who currently violate our laws with impunity, who have committed offences such as speeding, jumping traffic lights, drink driving and driving without wearing a seatbelt. It's an example of when a common set of rules and enforcement mechanism is eminently sensible.

Elsewhere, the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday favourably reported the proposed Small Business Act which would increase the role of small businesses in framing European legislation and include measures to have common starting dates for legislation affecting firms and an annual statement of legislation coming into force. Surprising, but welcome, to see that they are praising EU measures to cut red tape and business burdens rather than recycling the usual scare stories about 'meddling Brussels bureaucrats'.

Although the Mail was less fulsome, pointing out that the Federation of Small Businesses feels the proposals are "too weak", if you were a Commission press officer you'd be forgiven for asking for a lie down at all the praise!

Bushill Matthews and gravy

Following the Tory expense scandal that accounted for their leader Giles Chichester and chief whip Den Dover, the Conservatives have appointed Phillip Bushill Matthews to lead their delegation in the European Parliament.

Speaking to a local newspaper Bushill Matthews said: "The national press only seem interested in selectively promoting the 'gravy train' image of the European Parliament."

This is a bit rich, coming from him, as his own book on the Parliament was called "The Gravy Train" (sadly no longer stocked by Amazon though available in the odd second hand shop).

Anyone reading the book would find that it actually tried to debunk much of the gravy train image, but its title (and cover complete with picture of him climbing on a train) show that he is another Tory trying to ride two horses.

High Court rejects Stuart Wheeler's referendum bid

It was good to see that the High Court has finally thrown out the claims of spread betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler that the Government should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with Lord Justice's Richards and Mackay judging that there was "nothing in the claimant's case to cast doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum".

Wheeler, who is one of the leading donors to the Conservative party, famously giving £5m to the party when William Hague was leader, is the second high profile Tory to have a case thrown out. Last week the renowned Europhobe Bill Cash made similar attempts to stop the ratification of the Treaty in the High Court only for his claim to be thrown out. Indeed, Justice Collins described Cash's attempts as "totally without merit" and "an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

Bill Cash's attempt to take the Government to court was particularly bare-faced. Cash, whose euroscepticism first came to real prominence when he helped 'lead' the Tory Maastricht rebels in 1993, always claims that the EU undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Deeply ironic, then, that he would go to the High Court to try and get the judiciary to overrule the UK Parliament.

These judgements should mark the end of the Treaty's progress in the UK, and the EU (Amendment) Bill will now be formally ratified and the "instruments of ratification" deposited in Rome. However, Wheeler has refused to give up, saying that he will go to the Court of Appeal despite being refused an appeal by the court. Still, if he wastes his money on that, there may be less to give to the Tories and the eurosceptic pressure group that calls itself 'Open Europe'.

We must find a solution for all

Suppose the future reform of the House of Lords required the approval of every county. Suppose that all county councils agree the reform, except Herefordshire, which votes "No".

What should be done? Should reform be abandoned because one county votes against? Should Herefordshire be asked to vote again, in light of the support of every other county? Should Herefordshire's concerns be identified, if possible, and an attempt made at a compromise?

That is the situation facing European coutries, who negotiated a package of reforms to the EU, which one country has rejected, while most if not all of the others continue to support it. Reform of the EU needs approval from every single member state.

Of course, every country has its own procedure to decide on such matters, in accordace with their own traditions and constitutions. Some have a decision of their national parliament (sometimes by a simple majority, some by a two-thirds or three-fifths majority), one has a referendum, one requires the approval of each of its internal entities (seven parliaments) another the approval of a two-thirds majority of its internal states. These differences sometimes give rise to claims that one method is better than another, but it is any case not something for the EU to decide, but is up to each member state.

What is not allowed under the current rules is a single referendum of all European citizens. To obtain agreement for reform, you need to win the Grand Slam of of 27 victories and zero defeats.

In this situation, there is no choice but to do what all 27 governments agreed at the end of last week, namely to persevere in searching for a solution acceptable to all countries. The Reform Treaty agreed last year proved acceptable to almost all member states. The most likely route to a solution is to do what it takes to make the package acceptable to Ireland, without making it unacceptable to others. Not easy, but as I said in the parliament on Wednesday it is a challenge we must rise to.

The way Eurosceptics work

If ever people needed proof that phoney 'think-tank' Open Europe is nothing more than a front for Better Off Out campaigners for UK withdrawal from the EU they should look at this opinion poll.

With great fanfare, Open Europe on Tuesday announced this poll undertaken by YouGov apparently showing that only 29% of people want the UK to remain a member of the EU. Needless to say, the Tory headbangers on Conservative Home have already loudly trumpeted the poll as proof that David Cameron should heed the Better Off Out brigade and pledge to negotiate British withdrawal from the EU.

Of course, polls such as these are designed to be spun by those commissioning them, but on closer inspection, the poll itself is based on a false premise, claiming that the EU was always based around "economic co-operation" but is now responsible for making decisions on "foreign policy, immigration and crime" (carefully ignoring the fact that the EU does not govern Britain's immigration or criminal justice systems, nor can it make foreign policy decisions without the agreement of Britain and all EU countries).

Therefore, the poll offers three choices - "the UK should stay in the EU", "the UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the political elements of the EU" or, "the UK should leave the EU altogether". Faced with this, 29% chose the first option, 38% the second and 24% the third. Notwithstanding the fact that the single market is political as well as economic (a market must have rules and regulations to ensure that it is free and fair, rather than be left free to unfettered market forces, and the adoption of such legislation is a political process), the option of remaining in the single market "but pulling out of the political elements" is virtually impossible to achieve. In other words, it is a meaningless choice.

Besides, the Europhobes don't seem to have commented on the statistic that only 24% want Britain to leave the EU - a lower figure than in virtually any opinion poll since the 1975 referendum.

So there you have it - loaded questions based on false premises with bizarre choices makes for a pointless poll that reveals nothing - but don't expect Open Europe to be asking for their money back. So much for the intellectual rigour and integrity you would expect from a genuine think-tank.

Staying with Eurosceptic nonsense, the Sun came up with an inspired scare story that the French presidency wants a British aircraft carrier to be at the heart of a new EU Navy.

This 'story' is similar to the Sun's claim on St George's Day that the EU was planning to destroy Britain by dividing it into five regions (lumping the South-East in with the North of France in new super-region). Needless to say the Sun were able to find a Tory politician desperate enough for publicity to lend the story some ill-deserved credibility, with Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox saying "the EU's military ambitions know no bounds" and "we should be told whether this madness emanates from Paris or Downing Street", and, surprise surprise, Open Europe's Neil O'Brien also adds his two penn'orth.

Whilst it would be churlish to say that they've not been imaginative, (a Sun hack has certainly earned his corn with this re-writing of the lyrics to the Village People's "In the Navy") the story is fabricated tosh. Indeed, buried at the end of the story lies a quote from the Ministry of Defence demonstrating that this story is a pack of lies. Still, there seems to be nothing you can do to stop Eurosceptic tabloids writing such nonsense. Maybe the Commission should tell the press that it intends to buy up News International - now that would be a story!

Lords seal ratification of Lisbon Treaty in UK

Last night the House of Lords brought to an end the to the long and careful parliamentary scrutiny of the Lisbon Treaty and approved it by giving a third reading to the EU Amendment Bill. The Conservatives made a last-gasp attempt to derail the process by tabling an amendment to delay the vote on third reading by four months, but this was comfortably defeated by a majority of 93. When the Bill is given royal assent today, the UK will become the 19th country to have ratified the treaty.

Our ratification of the treaty coincides with the start of the European Council meeting which will take place today and tomorrow. British ratification makes clear that our position is that the Lisbon Treaty is good for the UK and good for the EU. Whether or not the treaty can be salvaged will depend in part on the outcome of this Council meeting. While the impetus is on the Irish to take stock of last week's 'No' vote and assess whether an agreement can be reached, the views of the 26 other countries who also signed the Lisbon Treaty (and 19 of whom have now ratified it) should not be blithely ignored. This is a collective problem that requires a collective solution.

Some say that we should take the Irish 'No' vote as a hint to end the reform process and focus on policy delivery. Of course, we all, even those of us most closely involved in the process of drawing up the Lisbon Treaty, want to get away from institutional reform and focus on policy delivery. The most significant policy challenges facing the EU: tackling man-made climate change, the effects of globalisation on the most vulnerable in society, energy security etc will not wait for us to reform our institutional structure. As Gary Titley, the leader of the Labour MEPs, said this week, "globalisation continues apace".

But better institutions would make it easier to tackle these and other problems, and the checks and balances the reforms would bring in would reassure people that the EU is subject to democratic control.

Indeed, this week, the Parliament adopted the report by my colleague Eluned Morgan MEP to reform the electricity market in the Europe. In particular, it included proposals for full ownership 'unbundling', whereby companies would not be able to own both the production and distribution of electricity - good news for consumers, as the competition should prevent electricity prices from being distorted. This is a classic case of the "Europe of results" that a 21st century EU should aspire to be.

Getting beyond the self-serving hyperbole of, on the one hand, the Eurosceptics, who claim that any attempt to seek a compromise acceptable to Ireland is undemocratic, and , on the other hand, some ultra-federalists, who want a hard core of integrationist countries to go it alone, the reality is that the EU is still here and still needs reform.

The European Parliament's debate on Ireland's No

Interesting debate today in the European Parliament on the fallout of the Irish referendum, punctuated by UKIP and three of the Tories coming in wearing T-shirts urging "respect for the Irish votes" - prompting one Irish MEP to comment that history would have been quite different if right-wing British politicians had started to do that a century or more ago!

The problem we face, of course, is how to respect the divergent results of different member states - both the No from Ireland and the Yes from other member states.

Some want to listen just to one side. I want to listen to both. We must then rise to the challenge of bridging the gap.

If there are by the autumn 25 or 26 ratifications, it would not be unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the minority to consider the possibility to seek a compromise rather than to block reforms entirely.

Indeed, that was the professed view of No campaigners in Ireland, who said they want a better deal.

Yet, the UKIP/Tory/Sinn Fein/French Communist view (what an alliance! watching the acting leader of the Tories vigorously applaud the French Communist leader was instructive) expressed in the debate was that other countries shouldn't be allowed to vote on the treaty at all (presumably in case they Vote Yes).

For good measure, Nigel Farage threw into the debate a claim that a Commissioner had committed fraud - a remark somewhat undermined when the very next speaker was UKIP's shame, Ashley Mote, recently released from prison after serving a sentance for...fraud!

Several Irish members were understandably bitter at the the claims by some No campaigners that the Lisbon Treaty would have legalised euthanasia, drug-taking and abortion in Ireland, and also required higher corporation tax rates and an Irish contribution to a European army. These lies had an impact on enough voters to swing the result.

But blame was also laid at the door of the Irish government for not campaigning or explaining properly or even bothering to rebut the No claims until the last few days, preoccupied as they were with installing a new Prime Minister and re-shuffling the government.

Be that as it may, we now have to face up to the consequences rather than apportion the blame. It will be no easy task, but the need to reform the EU has not gone away and achieving this remains on the agenda.

If you want to read more on the referendum I recommend Will Hutton's excellent piece for the Observer which addresses the issue of lies and misinformation used by some of the No campaingers.

More on MEPs' expenses

The media focus on Tory MEPs' expenses has continued unabated since I last blogged on the subject a week ago.

Following the resignation of the Conservative leader in the European Parliament, their Chief Whip has also resigned. They can hardly claim it is a case of a few small rotten apples, when it is their leadership team itself that has had to resign!

As I said, the Tories might have avoided this humiliation if they had done what we Labour MEPs have done for the last eight years, namely have our spending reviewed annually by an independent accountant to certify that all has been used properly. They are now belatedly on board for that, as are - equally belatedly - the LibDems.

Some have suggested that this has all come out now because of in-fighting among the Tories who remain bitterly divided on Europe, but even at the best of times have a reputation for ruthless backstabbing. Certainly, some of the stories in the press appear to come from internal leaks. Some have suggested that Cameron will use the opportunity, not just to deal with wrong-doers, but to purge those who are not solidly behind his own leadership. Maybe. That is an interesting dimension to their troubles, but it should not distract us from the the fundamentals. The setting up of companies run by family members to siphon off public money for private gain is a serious allegation and if true should be punished.

Meanwhile, they are determined to do whatever they can to tar other parties with the same brush. They are distraught that, despite trying, they have not been able to find equivalent cases among Labour MEPs.

We are now being bombarded with letters and calls from journalists, and queries from various campaign groups. Fortunately, we can reassure people quite easily thanks to our auditing rule and the fact that we all fill in our Declaration of Members' Interests, which includes whether any family member is employed. We publish the guidelines given to our auditors and we publish the resultant certificates on our websites. We also publish how we make use of the staff allowance in terms of employing staff in our constituency and parliamentary offices.

Despite all this information being publicly available, the anti-Europe campaign group Open Europe, which masquerades as a think tank, has now appointed itself as the policeman-cum-prosecutor of MEPs, has sent each Labour MEP a questionnaire, and denounces all those who fail to fill it in. Too lazy to read the published information on our websites, they expect MEPs to spend their time co-operating with an organisation that has no interest in improving the system, and certainly makes no distinction between genuine problems and invented ones, but simply in promoting Euroscepticism by means fair or foul. We'd rather spend our time, given that we are in order with our spending, on doing our job on behalf of our constituents.

For anyone who is interested in my expenses I suggest they look at the relevant page on my website.

So Ireland has said No

All the indications suggest Ireland has said 'No', but there are 26 other member states whose opinion matters too.

It is inconceivable that all of the others will simply say "too bad - one country has said ‘No’ to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for evermore."

All member states want reform. Even the ‘No’ campaigners in Ireland claimed they want to negotiate a better package.

So, what is to be done? First, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty. Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.

This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out. They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum.

Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU’s negotiating stance on agriculture on the WTO. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.

Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one Commission out of three, as of 2014, as for every member state) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries. Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system and already in 2009.

Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty - which would require a new IGC and renewed ratification in all the counties (now nearly 20) that have ratified already - then so much the better.

Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about a new referendum. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again - especially if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many.

Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions. Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to abandon all reform. A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise would do nobody any favours.

Ireland votes tomorrow

So, Ireland votes tomorrow on the Lisbon treaty. It's their choice for their country's ratification, but I do hope they take account, in evaluating the arguments for and against, of the wider context.

All 27 countries in the EU agree that the EU needs reform. All have worked for several years to draw up this package of reforms, taking account of every country's concerns. A first attempt, replacing the current treaties with a new constitution, fell when two countries rejected it. This new attempt, amending the current treaties, has already been ratified by a majority of Member States, but needs the approval of all 27, including Ireland. If this attempt also fails, it would take years to agree on a new set of reforms. Some are hoping that there would never be such agreement and the EU would fall apart (the UK Conservatives, for instance, hope that a failure to approve the treaty now would give them a chance of being in power - they think - before any new package is agreed, which they could then block.)

That is why Eurosceptics from across Europe, but especially from Britain, have helped the NO campaign in Ireland. They have not hesitated to deploy the same lies as they have used in Britain, together with some new ones tailored to cause concern in Ireland such as claiming that the treaty will affect Irish laws on abortion. They tell workers that the treaty will undermine social standards and they tell businesses that it will increase their taxes, both patent lies. They try to stir up fears that small countries will lose out (so why have all the countries that are smaller than Ireland already ratified with large majorities, while some larger ones are among those considered difficult?).

Let us hope the Irish people will give short shrift to the myth-makers and endorse the treaty by a clear majority!

Harry Graham Corbett 1920 - 2008

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that I have not posted many items over the last 10 days. This is because my father, Harry Graham Corbett, sadly passed away on 2 June. He had been in decline for some time, but in the end went quite suddenly and painlessly, aged 88. None the less, it was a painful loss to my mother, me, my brother and our children.

Born into a family of steelworkers in 1920, my father won a place at university which he was unable to take up, as his family couldn't afford it. He became a statistician, joining the General Registrar Office after the war, specialising in health statistics (and helping establish the link between smoking and various diseases), later with the World Health Organisation, where he developed the International Classification of Diseases, now used for health statistics all over the world.

My father was the very incarnation of decency. All his life, he strove to do what he saw, after careful consideration, as the right thing. In the war, he was a conscienscious objector, but volunteered for front-line service first on bomb disposal and then as a medical officer, parachuted on D-day at Pegasus bridge. Captured by the Germans, he was a prisoner of war in what is now Poland for nearly a year, where he refused to leave the sick prisoners when the Germans retreated, staying with them until the Russians arrived and evacuated them through ruined towns and villags to Odessa.

He did the right thing by his family, always supporting us, advising without imposing, listening before advising, keeping meticulous records.

Although he was never politically active, he followed politics closely, and was a strong (though not uncritical!) Labour supporter. He had a strong sense of social justice.

All his life, he gave to charities, and my mother has selected one, the Salvation Army, which people can give to in his memory here

Tory leader resigns

So, Giles Chichester has resigned as Tory leader in the European Parliament – their shortest-lived leader ever!

Giles Chichester was once the luckiest politician to be elected. He won the Devon & East Plymouth constituency in 1994 by a whisker, thanks to the Liberal Democrat votes being split by a “Literal Democrat” (spot the difference!) candidate, who did no campaigning, but siphoned off more than 10,000 votes from the Liberal Democrat who would certainly have won by a mile:

G.B. Chichester Conservative 74,953
A.M. Sanders Liberal Democrat 74,253
R.J. Huggett Literal Democrat 10,203


At the following election in 1999 under the new regional PR system, he competed against his Tory MEP colleagues and others for a place high enough on the Conservative list of candidates to guarantee election. The Tory party selection method was a vote among whichever party members turned up to a single general meeting in the region. The South-west is pretty vast, and having the meeting in his very own constituency was no doubt what ensured his survival.

Well, there must be many Tories who now wish he hadn’t been so lucky! But, had the Conservatives followed the example set by Labour MEPs eight years ago in having our spending of staff and office allowances reviewed by an independent external auditor every year to ensure that all monies are properly spent, then maybe they would have avoided such humiliation.

I suppose I should be jumping up and down with glee at another case of Tory trouble, but I'm afraid that for large swathes of public opinion we will all get tarred with the same brush. Parts of the media that never covers the European Parliament’s actual work will cover this in detail - and that is all that some people will ever read or hear about the Parliament. The Eurosceptics will even argue that the system is inherently corrupt and we should scrap it – a line they of course don’t take for similar scandals such as that of Derek Conway MP at Westminster. Yet the answer is the same in both cases: clear, transparent rules, properly applied and enforced.

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring?

Who says the Lisbon Treaty is boring? This amusing 'Spoofers guide to how to not vote No' by Jason O'Mahony is well worth a read and a chuckle!