Europe must strengthen exisiting financial regulations

The financial sector crisis has left governments with little choice but to bail out banks, lest the entire financial system collapses, yet these same banks were embarking on high-risk strategies while paying obscene bonuses only a few months ago.

Understandably, this has given rise to calls for better regulation of financial markets. In Europe, which has an increasingly integrated financial market, there is a risk that new rafts of separate and diverging national regulations lead to fragmentation of this market, with duplication and extra bureaucracy adding to costs and instability. Reivisiting existing common rules to tighten them up where necessary would seem to be a more effective way forward than each country rushing to regulate its own patch in an uncoordinated way.

Even a seemingly welcome national measure can have harmful knock-on effects on other countries. Ireland's announcement that it would guarantee all deposits at its six banks, could lead to large commercial deposits being switched from un-guaranteed banks in other countries, especially those considered vulnerable, maybe in Halifax, Amsterdam or Paris. This would aggravate the current chaos, threaten jobs and trigger rivalries, with governments forced to out-bid each other in order to stem financial flows caused simply by different national approaches. Co-ordination is desparately needed.

Labour4yorkshire.eu

We have now launched our campaign website for the 2009 European elections, which you can view at www.labour4yorkshire.eu.

You can see our full team of candidates as it results from the ballot of all Labour party members in Yorkshire & Humber. You can also learn more about the work Linda and I do for Yorkshire & Humber in the EU and the benefits membership brings to our region and country. There is also information about how the election works and why it's so importnat that you take part. You can also learn more about each candidate.

Happy surfing!

A positive few days in Manchester

I have been cheered by an enjoyable few days at Labour party conference in Manchester.

Perhaps to the surprise of some, the atmosphere was upbeat and determined with little sign of the doom and gloom many people outside the party were wishing for.

It hasn't been the easiest few months for Gordon but his speech today was excellent, setting out a commanding set of policies for the future and drawing clear battle lines between what Labour has done so well and what the Conservatives would fail to do, coninciding of course with his calm handling of the world financial crisis in this past, manic week. Another of his points, importantly, was Labour's determination to continue to work closely with our neighbouring countries in the EU, something David Cameron has failed to comprehend since taking charge of the Tories.

The stark differences between Labour and the Conservatives with regards to the EU has been hammered home time and again throughout the conference. Both on the conference floor and in fringe meetings Labour MPs, ministers, MEPs and party members have been standing up and championing Europe and it's fantastic to hear!

It was also a great pleasure to see the moving tribute to my colleagues Gary Titley and Glenys Kinnock recieved following their announcement they would be stepping down at the next European elections. Both MEPs have worked tirelessly for their constituents, Gary for almost 20 years and Glenys 15, and it was touching to see Gordon and the rest of the party acknowledge their efforts so enthusiastically.

EuroparlTV

The European Parliament has launched an online TV service to help make EU matters more accesible, particularly to younger people.

You can check the site out by clicking here

There is already a video about the problem of the European City Guide online. It's in the Your Voice section of the site.

Rumours abound about Strasbourg parliament

Ever since the roof caved in in the Strasbourg parliament, rumours have flown back and forth about the state of the building.

The latest gossip is that the steel used to construct the parliament was the same as that used to build Terminal 2E in Charles de Gaulle airport, which collapsed in 2004, killing four people.

If the rumour turns out to be true, and it only is a rumour, it would appear that the Strasbourg Parliament will be out of order for quite some time.

Breakfast with Junker

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker chairs the "Eurogroup" of Finance Ministers of the Eurozone countries. Breakfast with him this morning with him and others was particularly timely given yesterday's turmoil on financial markets.

When asked whether he thought yesterday's turmoil in the USA could cause similar financial sector bankruptcies in Europe, he paused, and said: "If I were to say 'Yes', you can imagine what the media would report and the effect this would have on the markets. If I were to say 'No', you can imagine what the media might say about me in a couple of weeks"

Actually, he was reasonably upbeat on the chances of avoiding a recession in the Eurozone (a "technical" recession of two consecutive quarters without growth was possible, but worse unlikely) and he drew attention to the advantage of the euro itself in such turbulent times: had there still been separate currencies buffeted in different directions,the extra instability would have added to the crisis.

Not that everything is perfect. He said that some countries are likely to overshoot the three percent guideline on government deficits, as they hadn't consolidated their public finance during the good times. (He did not mention France by name, but said he was glad to answer that question in French, as he effortlessly switched around from one language to another).

But, he said, the crisis had shown that the market was not the solution to everything. Good management and intervention by governments is patently needed too, as even the Americans are discovering. Market fundamentalists would do well to observe a period of silence. As a Prime Minister, he was pleased that his job was no longer considered to be be illegal.

Mr Junker, let us recall, is not a left-wing Socialist, but a Christian Democrat.

Lords skewer Open Europe

It was interesting to read yet another authoritative report from the House of Lords EU committee, this time on the future of European Regional Policy, but with unusual entertainment values as it contained some magisterial rebukes of the eurosceptic pressure group Open Europe.

Amongst the Lords' conclusions were that the EU structural funds, though not without fault, were "effective and, in general, fit for purpose". One of the purposes of structural funds is to support projects in the poorest regions, so it was welcome to read the committee conclude that "the evidence we received suggests that the size of the funding distributed to the poorest regions under the Convergence Objective is approximately correct" adding that "the absorption cap in the poorest countries operates at an appropriate level to match the ability of regions to use the funds."

Eurosceptics often try to argue that the administration and award of structural funds is both costly and inefficient. However, the committee found that "objections about the cost of management of the funds are overstated" adding that "the funding and scope of the Convergence Objective, which supports the poorest regions, is appropriate and it should remain."

But equally diverting - and also amusing - was the way that the committee, which consists of experts on European policy from across the political spectrum, dismantled the 'evidence' submitted by Open Europe.

Even the Tory members of the committee were not receptive to Open Europe's arguments, with former First Minister of Northern Ireland and now Conservative peer David Trimble responding to O'Brien's statement that: "It is a question of whether you believe you can win the argument better in Westminster…or in Brussels. Where do you feel that Northern Ireland has more clout?" with "at least in Brussels they listen to you. I do not know that the Treasury does!"

Furthermore, Open Europe were so shameless as to cite a mere press report as the source for their outlandish claim that administering structural funds costs the UK £670m per year.

As cross-bench peer Lord Kerr put it: "the Press Association does not make up a number. They report somebody giving a number" adding that "I am sorry but it will not do to tell us that this is (from the) Press Association".

Indeed, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Watson was moved to comment that:

"I am now really startled that you provide this type of evidence. It is quite clear that you are saying that you cannot get disaggregated data. Nevertheless, you offer this enormous eye-catching sum and, as we have just seen, it clearly does not stand up".

Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that a reputable think-tank would source their 'evidence' using press reports. It's a bit like seeing a Sun or Daily Mail scare story (which is probably what Open Europe did) and then claiming that to be the truth!

With the Open Europe team admitting that their claims about the cost of structural funds were not entirely accurate, Lord Kerr offered this magisterial rebuke:

"I think that is a very interesting admission of defeat. There are a number of statements in the evidence and in the press releases about the evidence which are, I think we have established, guestimates; they are speculative. The list of horror stories is sourced to newspapers. I think one needs to be told facts rather than report like a very much fear will read perhaps in the Mail on Sunday that £670 million must be the UK cost of running the structural funds because it is in "evidence" to a House of Lords committee. I think that is very dangerous."

It seems that these rather feeble contributions, and the collapse of their so-called 'evidence' under cross-examination, were Mr O'Brien's last contribution as director of Open Europe. I understand that he has just been appointed director of the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange which was, incidentally, the organisation responsible for the widely discredited report about Britain's northern cities, which David Cameron described as "nonsense from start to finish". Let's see how he fares.

The Record, Europe debate on Ireland

Click here to see me debating what to do after the Irish referendum (against the Tory-Sinn Fein alliance) on BBC “The Record, Europe” programme.

You can also view or downlaod the programme on BBC iPlayer from here.

Tories, the Lib Dems and their attitudes to sexual services

There was some press consternation at a report by the European Parliament's Women's Committee debated last week, with some Tory MEPs going apoplectic at some of the ideas it contained.

It is not that many years ago that the very idea of women having equal rights to men, being able to open a bank account separately from their husband, not having to give up their job when they were married and so on, were met with similar disdain from the Conservatives.

Of course, a report from the Women's Committee, which was not legislation but simply a report analysing the situation, floating ideas and making a number of suggestions, contains a variety of ideas with which one might agree or disagree. But to treat it with contempt and disdain tell us much about the general attitude of the Conservatives.

On top of that, some of their votes were quite astonishing. The report looked at the problem of local newspapers being filled with adverts for local brothels and other sexual services. Interestingly, one local newspaper chain in the UK, Newsquest, recently took the decision to ban such adverts from their papers because of "concerns regarding the appalling issue of human trafficking" which it linked to the sex trade.

Probably most citizens would agree that, if brothels are to advertise at all, it would be better that they did so in publications that are not as likely to fall into the hands of children as local newspapers, delivered to every household, are. Yet the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats, voted to try to remove the paragraph on advertising sexual services in publications accessible to children from the report.

Solving the Strasbourg seat dilemma

A couple of weeks ago I circulated a tongue-in-cheek suggestion by email to parliamentary colleagues; that the Parliament rename the building in which its parliamentary chamber in Brussels in located. Instead of calling it the "Paul Henri Spaak" building, it could, I proposed, be called "Strasbourg", and Parliament could then hold all its sessions in Strasbourg.

I was, however, somewhat surprised to hear from the BBC that the Scottish Nationalist Party has this week taken up this idea in a press release, claiming it as their own. Plagiarism is, of course, common in politics, but usually not on such a specific matter - although they always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Joking aside, it is high time the national governments (whose power it is) revise their 1992 decision (at the Edinburgh Council chaired by John Major) obliging Parliament to shift twelve weeks a year to Strasbourg. The recent interruption of the monthly migration, due to the collapse of ceiling in the building that France built for us in Strasbourg, has been widely welcomed and shown how operating in Brussels is easier for all concerned, not just MEPs, but ministers, commissioners, journalists, staff, embassies and all.

Flagging up the issue

More hullaballoo from Eurosceptics about the European flag and anthem.

Most of you will be thinking that the 12 gold stars on a blue background and Beethoven’s Ode To Joy have been around for some time and you’d be right. The symbols were originally agreed on by Mrs Thatcher and other prime ministers of EU countries way back in 1985 but have never been formally recognised by the European Parliament.

To tidy up this discrepancy, a European Parliament committee, on which I sit, today voted in favour of recognising these EU symbols. Despite my disquiet at the Thatcherite angle, I voted in favour in a spirit of cross-party consensus.

Curiously backing out of the consensus, Conservative Tim Kirkhope voted against this. He did so, he explained, because he has an interest in a flag company back in the UK. A strange decision, bearing in mind most people simply abstain from votes which they have an interest in.

Although the status of the symblols is just a decision of the relevant institutions (plans to put them in the treaty and have them ratified by Member States were abandonded last year), leaving their status somewhat akin to the Olympic flag and anthem - don't be surprised to see Eurosceptic media stories raging about superstates and suchlike in tomorrow’s newspapers!

The Tories, then and now

Clearing out my attic over the summer I came across some interesting old press clippings. One recorded Margaret Thatcher's visit to Brussels, as leader of the opposition, in 1977 in which she said that if the Conservatives won the next elections, "the country will take a more positive attitude" to Europe and that she "would like to see a closer alliance with the Christian Democrats and others on the basis of a joint statement of beliefs".

Tell that to the current Tory leaders.

Norway and the EU

Eurosceptics are fond are pointing to Norway as a rich prosperous country that is not a member of the EU and appears to be doing well. But even if we assume that what is good for a very small (population 4million) country sitting on vast oil reserves and with an unlimited supply of hydroelectric power would in some way be applicable to a nation of over 60 million that has to pay its way in the world by trade, closer inspection shows that Norway's relationship with the EU is not the bed of roses that eurosceptics would have us believe.

I have just read an article by Erik Eriksson, a professor at the University of Oslo, who points out that, in order to access the EU market, Norway negotiated the EEA agreement which required it "to agree to incorporate all future EU legislation for the areas covered" into its own domestic law. Yet Norway has no voice around the table when such EU legislation is elaborated by EU member states. It can, Professor Eriksson points out, second experts to over 200 EU committees. They have no voting rights, and there are no Norweigan ministers in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, nor MEPs in the European Parliament. As Professor Eriksson says: "when EU member states disagree, they have institutionalised procedures for settling their differences. Norway, though, has to rely on old fashioned diplomacy."

What are its cards in such diplomacy? Professor Eriksson points out that the bulk of Norway's trade is with the EU whereas from an EU perspective Norway represents only a very small part of its overall trade. This makes for what he calls "an unbalanced agreement between two very unequal parts". This would be exactly the same for Britain.

All in all, Professor Eriksson concludes that non-membership of the EU is "a democratic disaster for Norway" and that, through its regrettable decision to stay out of the EU, "it is democracy itself that has suffered".

More UKIP shambles

Just met a disgruntled UKIP MEP (or should I now say ex-UKIP?) who told me he would not stand for election again for this shambles, after their bun-fight in Bournemouth last week, described in glowing terms by the Independent. Mind you, his view was that Farage himself had planted this article to stir up party members against his (many) internal enemies. Who knows?

Come and meet your MEPs in Sheffield

I and my colleague Linda McAvan will be attending this along with the Tory and Lib Dem MEPs from Yorkshire & Humber.

I hope to see you there!

Declan Ganley and the Irish No

Declan Ganley, the Anglo-Irish millionaire who led the No campaign to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, spoke at a public meeting in the European Parliament today. The meeting was hosted by the Tory Eurosceptic, Dan Hannan MEP.

To the horror of the UKIP members present, Ganley presented himself as a pro-European, waxing lyrical about how good Europe was to Ireland, how the EU was the most successful peace process in history and how the last thing he wanted was for the EU to break up. The big smiles quickly disappeared from the UKIP faces as he said that.

Yet Ganley was stupendously vague as to what he did believe in and as to what he objected to in the Lisbon Treaty. He simply said that he wanted to replace Lisbon with a new Europe which would be "prosperous, democratic, free and legitimate" as if the supporters of the Lisbon Treaty wanted a Europe that was undemocratic and/or illegitimate.

He said he was against the Lisbon Treaty because having read it he didn't see how any democrat could support it, yet did not said what he found undemocratic in a treaty which seeks to extend the powers over the EU system of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. He said he that the No campaign wants transparency, democracy and accountability to be at the heart of the European Union - precisely the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty - but offered no alternative way of achieving it.

He refused to answer questions as to where his "Libertas" No campaign obtained its massive financial resources. He peddled yet again the myth that the European Parliament had voted not to accept the result of the Irish referendum and that it had kept secret the plans to implement the treaty. (On this last point, he was particularly disingenuous as it was the Eurosceptics who had objected to the European Parliament discussing implementation before it was ratified, yet when such a postponement was agreed, they claimed it was an attempt to conceal.)

He refused to disassociate himself from the wild claims made by No campaigners to the effect that the Lisbon Treaty would impose on Ireland abortion, conscription to a European army, the death penalty and higher corporation tax. (Presumably what he meant when he said that in the referendum campaign "every angle was looked at"). Interestingly, in the same room I glimpsed an article by an American academic Andrew Moravcik, if anything a slightly Eurosceptical commentator on European affairs, whose verdict of Ganley's campaign is: "Libertas and like-minded groups specialise in spreading untruths by internet faster than they can be refuted".

He squirmed when reminded of previous writings of his calling for a fully federal European with a directly elected President.

When he rightly said that when a majority vote on a subject you have to accept the result, he was particularly reluctant to discuss the outcome of the Spanish, Luxembourgish and Romanian referenda which gave majorities for the Constitutional Treaty. When I questioned him on how to reconcile the divergent verdicts given by different European countries, in order to find a reform to the European Union acceptable to all, he simply avoided responding by repeating that Lisbon was dead - and presumably nothing it contained should ever be supported by Ireland or anybody else, even if it is ratified by the overwhelming majority of member states.

Well, if Mr Ganley is a Euroenthusiast, than I am a Eurosceptic!

The Express plugs the Euro! Shurely shome mishtake!

I had a welcome surprise on Friday, when reading the Express (of all papers!) making a case for Britain to join the euro! While the new vastly reduced roaming tariffs will make it much cheaper for people to call and receive calls from abroad, the pound's weakness against the euro means that the maximum fee for UK mobile users will actually go up in terms of pounds. This is another, albeit smallscale, example of how Britain's status outside the eurozone leaves it vulnerable to currency fluctuations.

However, I fear that the Express was not intentionally intending to plug British membership of the single currency.