EU ambassadors in Leeds

The ambassadors to the UK of all the other EU countries came to Leeds today - an unusual event, taken on the initiative of the French ambassador (as France currently holds the presidency of the EU Council).

This was no just a "school outing" but an opportunity for ambassadors to get to know the reality of Britain outside London. They visited regeneration projects, met councillors, MPs and an MEP (me) and had briefings from the city architect and others about the development of Leeds and the region's economic prospects, including its links to other parts of Europe.

Doing this as a group also sent a powerful message of partnership, which has not gone unnoticed.

Congratulation to the French ambassador, Monsieur Gourdault-Montagne, for taking this idea forward.

Declan Ganley: more than meets the eye?

It was interesting to be in Ireland on Wednesday discussing what may happen about Lisbon. I also learnt more about Declan Ganley, leader of the No campaign and his mysterious organisation “Libertas”. Links to information on him can be found at this most interesting site

It shows that far from being a small businessman from the west of Ireland, Declan Ganley appears to be highly involved in a network of big businesses with military interests, usually based in Britain, and closely connected to US defence and intelligence networks. Many of the personalities in these networks can be described as “neo-conservative” in the American sense, and hostile to any degree of European integration that might offer a different view to the most belligerent unilateralist wing of the American Republican party.

The company he keeps in Europe is also right wing and Eurosceptic. At his meeting of 2 September at the European Parliament in Brussels, he was flanked by UK Tory arch-eurosceptic Dan Hannan, most of the UKIP MEPs and MEPs from Jean Marie Le Pen’s Front Nationale and the Vlaams Belang.

What is Libertas?

In December 2003, Ganley mentioned in an article in the American publication Foreign Policy Research Institute entitled “Europe's Constitutional Treaty: a threat to democracy and how to avoid it” that he supported the creation of a new political party (“I will for the sake of discussion call it Libertas”, he wrote) to campaign for a new Europe that would be a “partner” for the USA rather than “try to define itself in contradiction to the United States.”

Libertas Institute Ltd. was set up in October 2006. Five of its seven members worked for a company called Rivada Networks, Ganley's firm in the field of military security technology. The other two were his brother Sean and Chris Coughlin of Hewlett Packard Ireland. Libertas presents itself as a think-tank, but until 2007 there was no sign of any intellectual activity. It seems to have had the same telephone number as Rivada Networks.

Yet this “think-tank” managed to outspend the three main political parties of Ireland (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party) in the Irish referendum according to the Irish European Minister, he spent some €2 million.

Where that money came from is a mystery. Under current laws, Libertas does not have to declare where money came from or even how much was spent, as it is not classed as a political party. Political parties on the other hand must declare detailed spending and donation returns. The Irish government, as a result, is set to change its ethics laws so that other groups must also declare the source of their funding.

Ireland’s ethics laws do set limits on the amount an individual donor can give to a political group, such as Libertas in any one year, which is €6,348.69. Ganley has admitted that he provided funds of €200,000 to Libertas’ campaign, but this was only a “loan”. Loans can be made as long as they are "bona fide", according to the Standards in Public Office Commission, who are now likely to investigate whether or not Ganley’s loan is legitimate.

What is Rivada Networks?

Declan Ganley’s Rivada Networks designs and operates communications and information technology networks for security forces. The multinational corporation has Declan Ganley as its chairman and chief executive. Other board members include a number of retired or active US military (a General, an Admiral, a Rear Admiral) and Bush administration members.

Rivada Networks boasts some high level American military and security organisations as major clients. Among them are the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Ganley’s other companies

Ganley appears to have set up at least 9 companies in the UK and 11 in Ireland over the past 18 years. Many of them have been renamed or dissolved. Why?

Ganley Group International is registered at 128 Mount Street, London, near the US Embassy and with an innocuous antique shop on its ground floor. At the same address was Paladin Capital, specialising in Homeland security investment and worth over $900 million. Chairman of its advisory board is James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA.

Also at this address, is the Anglo Adriatic Investment Fund. This was involved between 1995 and 1997 in the privatisation programme in Albania. It will be recalled that the second phase of Albanian privatisation featured significant criminal activity in the pyramids financing scheme which broke the back of the Albanian economy and caused civil unrest in which over 2000 people died.

Ganley calls for all out war against Iran

In 2006, when there seemed a possibility that British and American forces might be pulled out of Iraq, Declan Ganley, whose company Rivada Networks has lucrative contracts with the American military, argued that if Iraq and Iran were to be tamed “full mobilisation for war would have to be carried out, complete with drafts, rationing and all of what Churchill referred to as the ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ that it takes to secure overwhelming victory.” And on the diplomatic efforts to try and avoid war: “As the US and Europe start yet another round of dialogue with Syria and Iran, the Mullahs are rolling around laughing behind closed doors — they did not cave in when we had leverage, now they will declare ‘the Emperor has no clothes’.” According to the Irish Examiner, Ganley said that Iran was near guaranteed to acquire nuclear weapons with little resistance and that only all-out war could tame both Iraq and Iran.

Ganley’s apparent thirst for all out war with Iran and an increased effort against Iraq is made all the more curious by the fact that one of Libertas’ main anti-Lisbon Treaty themes was the incorrect claim that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to an increase in the militarisation of Europe. Now we find out that Ganley has been criticising Europe for exactly the opposite – not being militarised enough. So does Ganley want more or less militarisation in Europe, or does that depend on whether or not he’s trying to win political battles or secure contracts for his business?

Is Declan Ganley actually Irish?

The nationality of Declan Ganley has come into question after Irish Minister of State, Dick Roche, revealed that Ganley had stated that his nationality was British on company records for nearly a decade, before changing it to Irish in 2006 (coincidently just as the debate over the constitutional future of Europe was beginning). Ganley, who claims to be from Galway in the west of Ireland, also stated that his address was in London during this period. Mr Roche said Ganley, who was born in London to Irish parents "likes to wrap himself in the tricolour whenever he faces any form of query or interrogation on issues like this [the debate on the Lisbon Treaty] … if you look at some companies you [Ganley] register yourself as an Irish citizen when it suits and register yourself as a UK citizen in other cases.”

Europe must now work with Ireland to resolve its objections to the Lisbon Treaty

The other EU countries must stand ready to meet Ireland's concerns if they want Ireland to re-consider the Lisbon Treaty. But to do so, they need Ireland to articulate a list of demands.

That is the message I gave today to the special Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland's relationship with the EU as part of a delegation of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs committee.

This is not an easy situation for anyone. We all know that any changes to the EU treaties require the agreement of every single Member state. But as we approach a situation where 25 or 26 will have said "Yes" and just one has said "No", it is neither unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the one to reconsider - especially if a serious effort is made to meet its concerns.

Of course, Ireland would be perfectly entitled not to re-consider. In law, that would be the end of the Lisbon treaty. But Ireland's friends across Europe would be dismayed at such an attitude. In the EU, the give-and-take co-operation of all member countries is fundamental to the continued success of the EU. If there is a divergence of views, we attempt to bridge the gap. If Ireland were to reject the idea of even trying to find a solution acceptable to all Member States, without even trying, it would find itself losing the considerable sympathy it has always enjoyed across Europe.

Some leading "no" campaigners, such as Declan Ganley, said at the time that the result was "a mandate to the Irish government to seek a better deal". It is a pity that he now seems to want to oppose any such attempt.

Fifteen years ago, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht treaty, it told the other member states to continue with their ratification procedures. The Danes said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but would come back with proposals to find a way out. Denmark identified four items in the Maastricht package that it didn't like; the other member states were able to meet its 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. Ireland itself went through a similar process with the Treaty of Nice.

Will it be possible to do likewise with Lisbon? The findings from the research commissioned by the Irish government indicated that lack of knowledge and information were the single most important factor, both in abstention and in voting "no". Fear of conscription into a European army, threats to corporation tax, the lack of an automatic Irish Commissioner and workers rights were among the specific concerns that were confirmed by the research.

Several of these concerns can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not change Ireland's ability to set its own tax rates, it does not oblige it to send troops to a European army and, perversely, workers' rights would actually be strengthened by the treaty. 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, Ireland and the other small countries were victorious on that point in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries, while the current Nice Treaty would anyway require a smaller Commission - but without an agreed rotation system.

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 other countries - then so much the better.

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, and achieving a solution acceptable Ireland and to all 26 other 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, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. 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.

Naturally, other countries and the European Parliament would prefer to find a solution in time for the European elections. Whether this is possible is up to Ireland. As responsible players, the Irish government and the main opposition parties will want to proceed carefully but purposefully. Other European countries must do what they can to help, but while we all want a solution as soon as possible, we must accept that there are no shortcuts and the issues raised by the "No" campaign must be given a respectful answer

Bruges group anniversary highlights Tory divisions on Europe

I was interested by the coverage of the dinner to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Mrs Thatcher's notorious Bruges speech.

At the gala dinner organised by the arch-eurosceptic Bruges Group, and attended by a handful of the most eurosceptic Tory politicians and a few UKIP members, diners listened to Norman Tebbit call for Britain to completely re-negotiate its relationship with the EU, followed by a referendum on whether Britain should remain part of the EU.

It ties in quite neatly with my article in the Guardian at the weekend, looking at the Tories' continued divisions on all things European. One of things that has struck me is that many Tories, particular the younger breed, routinely claim to be eurosceptic, and argue that we should re-negotiate our EU membership, but are unable to identify or examine in any detail the policy areas they would like to see Britain opt out of. At the same time, however, they do not wish Britain to leave the EU and recognise the huge economic benefits of having access to the single market and its common set of rules.

But the diehard eurosceptics, focussed to the point of obsession on their hostility to Europe, dictate the pace. They have been appeased by Cameron since his election as party leader in 2005, through a combination of the pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the mainstream centre right European People's Party in the European Parliament and his refusal to rule out a post-ratification referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Dan Hannan, one of the most eurosceptic Tory MEPs, says he voted for Cameron in 2005 purely because of his promise on EPP withdrawal.

The Tory moderates and, indeed, Cameron would probably be happiest if all European controversies would just go away. If the Conservatives really were to win the next election, presumably with the world economy still in the process of recovering from the effects of the financial crisis, few senior Tories would relish the prospect of seeing their administration dominated by re-negotiating our membership of the EU followed by a referendum that they would probably lose.

But, while the europhobes remain such a vocal minority in the Tory party and feel that Cameron is the man to do their bidding for them, the Conservative leadership will be at their mercy. As William Hague has acknowledged, Europe is still a "ticking time bomb" for the Conservatives.

Equal rights for Temporary Agency Workers!

Today the European Parliament adopted the Temporary Agency Workers directive that will, finally, give equal treatment at work to some of our most vulnerable workers.

This directive has been a long time coming. It has now been six years since the Commission first brought forward proposals for a Temporary Agency Workers directive. Under this directive, temporary workers will be given the same rights to pay, hours and holidays as their full-time colleagues. The number of temporary agency workers in the public and private sectors of the UK labour market has greatly increased in recent years. 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.

Following the directive's first reading in the European Parliament, which approved it with the support of Labour MEPs, TAW was blocked in Council, where the main concerns have been over the length of the qualifying period before equal treatment rights apply. In May, the UK government reached an agreement with the unions and the CBI that would give equal treatment after 12 weeks, allowing a deal to be reached among European Employment ministers in the Council of Ministers in June.

The Parliament, in accepting this compromise, has now ensured that this directive will enter into law very swiftly. All of which is great news for the estimated 1.3 million British workers who will be protected by this legislation and a demonstration that our European common market is a social market that combines protection of workers' rights with flexible labour markets.

Debating Viking and Laval - why the ECJ rulings show we need to change the law to guarantee workers' rights

The Parliament today debated a report by Swedish Social Democrat Jan Andersson, looking at the effects of the recent rulings, in particular - Viking, Laval, Rüffert and Luxembourg - by the European Court of Justice. These cases have, rightly, caused a great deal of consternation amongst trade unions in that the court seems to have given a higher priority to the freedom to provide services to the right to join a trade union, negotiate and enforce collective agreements and take industrial action.

For instance, in the “Laval” judgment of 18 December 2007, the ECJ ruled that a service provider from another Member State is not obliged to respect local collective agreements that aren’t legally obligatory on third parties. The answer is surely to give collective agreements recognition in national legislation, as is done in many countries. Then, any service provider from another Member State would be obliged by law to respect national collective agreements when providing services in the country in question.

In the Ruffert case, the Court accepted a national court ruling to overturn a measure requiring companies supplying a public sector institution to pay a minimum wage, on the grounds that: a) the “Building and public works collective agreement" only applied to public contracts and so covered only part of the construction sector; and b) there was no evidence to show that construction workers on public works needed more protection than those on private works. The answer is surely to make such requirements binding also on the private sector. Indeed, it is surely an anomaly that it doesn’t!

In this same judgement, with reference to the Posted Workers Directive (PWD), the Court said that the collective agreement did not fix a minimum rate of pay in accordance with any of the procedures laid down in the Directive (e.g. by law, regulation or universally binding collective agreements). It had not been declared universally applicable, as required by the Directive, even though there is a system for doing so in Germany. Again, the answer is surely to declare the agreement to be universally applicable, as provided for in the directive.

Some have suggested that the problem could be solved by having a new Social Protocol, annexed to the treaties. This would be very welcome but, in practice, would require the unanimous support of all Member States and would hence be extremely difficult to obtain.

We should be clear that not much is to be gained from blaming the Court or suppose that the Court has an anti-social bias – after all, the court merely clarifies what the state of the law is – rather, we should focus our attention on rectifying the underlying legal situation. In other words, the Laval, Ruffert, Luxembourg and other judgments tell us that it is the law, not the Court, that is the ass, in allowing the court to make an extremely minimalist interpretation of the PWD. Given that the ECJ rulings reveal that existing laws are inadequate, it is up to us to change the law - broadening the legal basis of the PWD to include a reference to the free movement of workers and to ensure that the PWD does not allow companies to undercut wages and working conditions in host countries.

The Andersson report is a useful contribution to this controversial and highly legally complex debate. Amongst its conclusions are a recommendation that EU countries should properly enforce the PWD, and a demand that the Commission draft legislative proposals to deal with the legal loopholes thrown up by the judgments and to prevent any conflicting interpretation of the law. Indeed, this is a point that should be part of our campaign in next year's European elections; that we will use our power to vote against the new Commission if they do not include the necessary legislative proposals in their first work programme.

The Commission has made encouraging noises in this regard. In April, a Commission statement emphasised that the freedom to provide services did not contradict and was not superior to the right to strike, organise and join a trade union or negotiate collective bargaining agreements. We need to ensure that they follow up their words with action.

Jörg Haider

Road accidents caused by speeding drivers cause hundreds of deaths every year across Europe's roads. Drunk drivers too slaughter the innocent. So it is a great shame that Austria this weekend gave a state funeral to a driver who was both speeding and drunk when he managed to kill himself last week.

Hannan's plans to destroy the welfare state

The ultra Eurosceptic Conservative MEP Dan Hannan has, with Douglas Carswell, just published The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain, which was summised in an article in the Sunday Times.

So what would Hannan’s plans really mean?
He promises:

"An end to the government monopolies in education and healthcare." This would leave us all paying for healthcare and education, which is too bad if you’re poor I suppose!

"Self-financing local authorities." So there would be no central government grant for local autorities, which will have to raise ALL their money through Council tax or other local taxes. This would be less of a problem in Surrey (high incomes, lower costs) than in Sunderland (lower incomes, higher costs). Council tax would therefore have to be higher in poorer areas.

"The devolution of social security to counties and cities." This will cause exactly the same problems as leaving local authorities to finance themselves. Cities face higher costs with a lower tax base. So much for solidarity or any kind of national cohesion.

"More referendums." More and important issues to be decided, on low turnouts, with superficial soundbites rather than detailed scrutiny by our elected representatives.

"Power back from Brussels in order to disperse it at home. You can't democratise Britain while 84% of our laws come from a super quango, the European Commission." Just nonsense. Only 10% (House of Commons library figures) of legislation originates from the EU, where it is anyway not decided on by the European Commission but by ministers (including British ministers) in the Council and directly elected MEPs in the Parliament. These are on subjects where we have decided it is advantageous to have a common approach, such as common rules for the common market instead of a myriad of separate national rules generating red tape.

There is little surprising in the article, Hannan is obsessed with dismantling the welfare state, but it is an insight into just how far removed from reality some of Dave’s cuddly Conservatives really are.

Brown gets Europe pulling together

Few people would begrudge Gordon Brown a peak at the world’s newspaper headlines after Le Monde hailed him a “European superhero” and the Washington Post declared him the saviour of the world financial system.

By boldly rescuing threatened banks by part-nationalising them, providing guarantees for inter-bank lending and injecting extra liquidity, Gordon produced a plan that was rapidly followed by the eurozone countries (whose meeting he was invited to, despite not yet being a member), and then by others around the world.

This has at least stemmed the current tsunami of financial sector troubles, but it is the combined action with other EU governments which promises to produce a long-term plan which can avert a reoccurence of the reckless gambling that left so many banks on the brink of collapse.

In today’s press conference with Jose Manuel Barroso, ahead of the EU summit, Gordon made clear that coordination and cooperation among EU governments and regulators is now imperitive. An early warning system and better regulation of transnational banks and companies are also set to be introduced. (It is also reassuring to see Barroso confirm that despite the current economic climate EU countries would maintain their ambitious plans to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions.)

Of course there is much still to do, with the rise in unemployment a warning there are still difficult times ahead but, thanks in no small part to Gordon Brown, there is at least now a concerted effort to get EU governments pulling in the same direction.

So UKIP did interfere with the Irish referendum

Back in January, Nigel Farage wrote on his blog that IND-DEM had made a large donation to the Irish "No" campaign. This letter from Kathy Sinnott proves that UKIP's group paid for a leaflet to be sent to every Irish household arguing for a "No" vote. It is both amusing and astonishing hypocrisy that UKIP, which frequently makes shrill accusations about "Brussels meddling with Britain", meddled 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 and IND-DEM knew this and no doubt tried find an indirect route to channel their money. Sinnott's letter is also interesting in that it asks the Taisoeach Brian Cowen to ensure that "each European Parliament group(s) and political foundation(s) be asked to make public the exact expenses they made for this referendum campaign in Ireland" adding that "my parliament group, IND-DEM is prepared to respond to this request in full". It would certainly be in the public interest, and highly revealing, for this information to be made available.

The EU flag and anthem

Seeking a solution to Lisbon

Interesting to meet the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin today and hear him confirm that Ireland does not consider the matter of the Lisbon Treaty to be closed. Noting that almost every other Member State has taken a sovereign decision to approve the treaty, he described what is being done in Ireland to find "the right solution within a reasonable time frame".

Overcoming a divergence of views when there is a 26-1 split is easier if the 1 rather than the 26 reconsiders. (Same if it is 25-2). But this in turn requires the other Member States to help meet the concerns of the one. Any reform of the treaty requires the approval of all Member States, so nothing can be done unless Ireland (and every other country) agrees. The Irish government is clearly up for that challenge and will seek to identify a set of demands that would make the package acceptable to Ireland.

Baroness Ashton is the right choice for Comissioner

Baroness Ashton's nomination to replace Peter Mandelson in the European Commission is welcome. She will be the first ever female British Commissioner. She knows her stuff on Europe, having steered the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords, fending off Eurosceptic attacks on it. She is also a very amiable person. I'm sure she will sail through her confirmation hearing at the European Parliament.

More on the current financial crisis

Further to my comments yesterday, there is another European dimension to the financial crisis.

Imagine that, instead of the euro, we still had the peseta, the lira, the Irish punt, French francs, etc. It is highly likely that they would have responded differently on exchange markets, and some might have been subject to speculative attack. Currency market turmoil would have added to the instability, aggravating the crisis. Instead, the bulk of Europe's common market was able to rely on a stable and strong currency to help weather the storm.

This point was made in connection with other crises too, by Stewart Fleming the former bureau chief at the Financial Times in the European Voice last week.

He wrote:

"So far, in the face of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s, the euro is once again proving its worth as a bulwark of stability. In 1997 and 1998, during the Asian and Russian debt crises, in the run-up to the launch of the euro, the single currency helped to insulate 'old' Europe from global contagion. When the bursting of the dot-com bubble triggered a transatlantic slowdown in 2001-02, the single currency again helped the eurozone ride out the worst of the storm. Now, in the wake of the US' subprime crisis, the eurozone is (once again) coping with the turbulence far better that would have been the case if the nation states of the eurozone had still been clinging to their national currencies, which is testimony to the extraordinary credibility that the single currency and its guardians in Frankfurt have amassed."

Will Hutton, writing in today's Guardian, goes further and believes that joining the euro is the only way Britain can secure the future of its banks and economy.