Ireland latest

The special sub-committee of the Irish Parliament, set up to evaluate the options for Ireland following its rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, reported yesterday. Interestingly, its recommendations to the Irish government focus on the option of re-running the Lisbon referendum, but on the assumption that the Irish government "would respond to concerns expressed during the referendum campaign". Such a response might involve supplementing the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with a range of declarations, protocols and decisions but "the committee has strong concerns about actions which may involve Ireland opting out of EU policy areas".

It remains to be seen how the Irish government will respond to its Parliament on this, but given that we are now approaching 26 ratifications by every other EU country, the most likely option for Ireland as the only member state to say 'No',is that it indeed seeks reassurance on those points on which it was unhappy, and then seeks the approval of the Irish people in a new referendum.

For all those eurosceptics who accuse the EU of "bullying" Ireland, it is interesting that this suggestion has come from the Irish Parliament itself, following widespread consultations, public hearings and debates. The hearings included both supporters and opponents of the Lisbon Treaty, parties from across the political spectrum and NGOs of all kinds as well as businesses and trade unions. It produced a considered and detailed report.

Other EU countries must now do their bit to meet Irish concerns and respond to any reasonable requests put forward by Ireland as a result of this process.

Football League set to introduce its own 'home grown player' rule

There have been several interesting recent developments in football policy including a potentially very positive step by the Football League to encourage clubs to invest in developing young players.

The Football League, taking the lead from UEFA's successful 'home grown players' rule which is now used in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, is hoping to establish its own version of the rule, which would take effect from next season, and be binding on the 72 clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two.

This idea, which has been put forward by the Football League's board of directors, would require at least four players in a team's 16-man match-day squad to have been playing domestically for at least three years before their 21st birthday. However, to conform with European law, they would not have to be English.

It is significant that the Football League, whose Chairman Brian Mawhinney was a Conservative Cabinet minister in John Major's government, has chosen to follow the UEFA model rather than the approach favoured by FIFA's Sepp Blatter, whose 'six plus five' idea would impose more onerous burdens on clubs and contravene European law on employment and non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

The Football League rule would be both proportionate and also an important step in encouraging clubs to invest in developing their youth programmes though it would bestill better if it were to require clubs to have four (or even just two) of their 16 from the clubs own youth scheme instead of just generally 'domestic'. Football league clubs, lacking the financial muscle to be able to compose a squad of bought players, usually have to rely on a combination of youth-team graduates, players signed on free transfers, and the occasional cash or loan signing. As Lord Mawhinney has pointed out, "fourteen of the 23-man England squad that beat Germany in Berlin, last week, were developed by youth development programmes at Football League clubs".

The proposal will be discussed at an extraordinary meeting of the Football League clubs on December 18th. I for one hope it is adopted. The Football League is developing into a hot-bed of extremely talented young footballers and a 'home grown players' rule will only serve to further encourage this.

More pro-EU sentiments from Tories

Hot on the heels of last week's conversion amongst the Tory MEPs to pro-European realism, with Roger Helmer calling for tighter regulation of EU animal welfare legislation to protect horses and Christopher Beazley saying that Cameron would take UK into the euro, previously arch-Eurosceptic Martin Callanan has a letter in his local paper praising EU state aid rules and adding that they "are essential to ensure a competitive business environment across Europe". He was at it again in yesterday’s Newcastle Evening Chronicle, demanding extra resources through the CAP (of all things) to help deal with the decline in bee numbers.

State aid rules avoid countries having to compete with each other in a bidding war, which would mean taxpayers paying over the odds. They are just part of the common rules than govern our common market.

How stringent these rules are in protecting consumers, workers or the environment are up to elected MEPs and ministers in the Council, with the Conservatives tending to support light-touch regulation and Labour MEPs calling for more strict rules and protection for consumers and workers.

It may have taken a while but at least a few Tory MEPs are coming to their senses but they will have to do battle with many of their colleagues who believe that Britain should leave the EU. Seemingly, as ever with the Tories, those that want in and those that want out have a long way to go to reconcile their differences.

The real truth on bananas and Euromyths

Dan Hannan's recent blog on the Telegraph website discusses the scrapping of EU regulations on some fruit and vegetables and claims that many Europhiles have consistently denied the existence of these rules and are now therefore trapped in some kind of Orwellian double speak.

He uses my blog as evidence and quotes the following: "From silly stories (such as the EP legislating that all bananas be straight) to more sinister ones (that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would lead to armed foreign police patrolling British streets) no opportunity, no matter how far-fetched, is missed to portray the EU as an evil empire."

But the truth is that the European Parliament has indeed never legislated that all bananas be straight. Quite apart from the fact that it was the Council of Ministers (i.e. national governments of EU countries) rather than Parliament that requested the rules, those rules anyway simply gave various classifications to bananas and didn't, as was often claimed, require all bananas to be straight. As I said on my website, this was in fact an industry driven initiative introduced so traders could be certain as to what they were ordering. If anyone is any doubt, and is as pedantic as myself, they can read the rules for themselves here.

Now, I'm certain Dan Hannan and his fellow Eurosceptics will still argue that legislation on bananas was never necessary and that national governments should not have requested it. It is certainly true that the very existence of the rules has caused the European Union considerable and unnecessary embarrassment (so Hannan must be disappointed that they are to be abolished!). Indeed, the Commission has now agreed with them. Nonetheless, Hannan's accusations that I have been misleading people on this issue, actually reinforces the point I am trying to make about Euromyths.

Euromyths exist because Eurosceptics deliberately distort or mislead, exaggerate or omit, and do not bother with the whole truth, as was the case when Hannan quoted me on his blog. Some may think this is a trivial matter, but what of the other story in the quote (armed foreign police patrolling British streets)? What of the invented quotes about Jean Monnet or Godfrey Boom's attempts to convince people there was going to be a shortage of New Zealand butter? How about The EU banning Peking Duck, or changing the name of Bombay Mix or EU rules forcing paramedics to stop work to have breaks? The list goes on and on.

The point of highlighting these is not to undermine Eurosceptic arguments about more serious issues (as Hannan suggests) but to publish the truth and ask why, if Eurosceptics have any serious arguments against our membership of the EU, they have to resort to myth, invention and distortions of the truth?

Is Iceland going to become the next country to join the EU?

Well, stranger things have happened. Iceland's Prime Minister, Geir Haarde has announced the creation of a commission to analyse whether Iceland should join the EU, while the Icelandic Foreign Ministry has drafted an action plan that would see the country make a membership application early next year with a view to becoming a full member in 2011. Given that Iceland already implements EU single market legislation in order to have access to the common market, it should not take them long to adopt the rest of the EU acquis communautaire.
 
In a further sign of the government's determination to proceed quickly, Haarde has announced that his ruling Independence Party will hold its 2009 conference in January instead of next October as scheduled, purely to consider the question of EU membership.
 
Iceland has never before applied for EU membership, but the price of isolation has been brought home to them following the collapse of its banking sector and a massive run on its currency, the Króna. This has convinced many in Iceland that the country needs to join the euro. For this to happen, Iceland must be a member of the EU. Indeed, recent opinion polls show that 70% of Icelanders are in favour of EU membership.
 
All of which must have eurosceptics, and particularly Dan Hannan, (who frequently argue that Britain's relationship with the EU should be akin to that of Iceland), weeping into their drinks. It's been a bad few weeks for their arguments.

European Parliament votes to give fruit to all children

Yesterday the European Parliament voted to give millions of children across the EU access to free fresh fruit in school. This is the first time that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget has been used in such a way to directly benefit the public health needs of European citizens.

This new scheme will effectively extend across Europe the existing successful Free School Fruit programme created in 2000 by Britain's Labour government which has already benefitted thousands of children in England, and will also go a long way to helping in the creation of similar schemes in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Although I and my fellow Labour MEPs believe a larger budget for the scheme would be more helpful (it is currently set at €90million per year), this encouragement from the EU for governments to support the health and wellbeing of our children will help to tackle obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses, as well as providing immediate benefits for child health and shaping young people's views on nutrition.

Unsurprisingly however, the increasingly erratic and dysfunctional Eurosceptics in UKIP opposed this report's conclusions, and the very real health benefits they will bring to our children, on the basis that this scheme would make the EU look good! Maybe they should try thinking more about the needs of their constituents than opposing every good idea they come across for their own political indulgence.

Have the Tories become pro-European again?

What an unthinkable thought just a short while ago, but after the events this week I'm not so sure.

Today the Tory MEPs selected as Leader, Deputy Leader and Chief Whip, three MEPs who are all opposed to David Cameron's pledge to withdraw the Tory MEPs from the centre-right EPP - and all with, as I understand, large majorities.

Indeed, while they elected fellow Yorkshire MEP Timothy Kirkhope as their leader in Europe, defeating James Elles, just as significant were the other results from their internal elections: the moderate Richard Ashworth defeated the eurosceptic Geoffrey Van Orden. Furthermore, Sir Robert Atkins, who penned this diatribe warning Cameron against allying the Conservatives with the Polish Law and Justice party and other extreme right parties in Europe, was appointed as Chief Whip. In other words, a clean sweep for the moderates.

Kirkhope has, of course, been leader of the Tory delegation before (between 2004 and 2007 before being ousted by Giles Chichester). He is also the author of this "Alternative Treaty", which contains virtually all the substantive reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty which the Conservative leadership in London so bitterly opposed.

Needless to say, this news is a clear statement to Cameron that, to keep to his EPP withdrawal pledge, he will have to fight his MEPs to the death, and has met with a mixed reaction amongst the grass-roots activists on the influential Conservative Home site. One would expect that the notorious H-block of Chris Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan must be spitting feathers, but perhaps not - even Helmer seems to have performed a volte face on Europe this week, calling for EU legislation (on horses) to be more strictly enforced in member States!

All of which comes hot on the heels of Conservative MEP Christopher Beazley's speech yesterday in the Parliament, in which he declared that Britain should have been "a founder member" of the euro, and adding that he looks "forward to the next Conservative Government applying to join the eurozone really quite shortly."

Just two days into a Strasbourg session one has to ask what more is set to follow. Maybe tomorrow the Tories will call for Britain to sign up to the Schengen agreement?!

Still, the bottom line from both of these stories is that, certainly as far as his MEPs are concerned, whatever edicts David Cameron tries to enforce from Smith Square, he is a leader who is not being followed.

Will Hutton on the euro

Will Hutton has written an interesting piece in yesterday's Observer on why Britain's best interests may be served by us joining the euro. Click here

Tory sleaze, yet again

The spectacular hypocrisy of the Eurosceptics - both Tory and UKIP ones - was revealed yet again with the disgrace of former Tory chief whip Den Dover MEP.

Eurosceptics often claim loudly that they will "clean out" Brussels, to which they attribute all manner of evils, yet they themselves keep on getting caught out for financial improprieties.

The belated removal of Den Dover (not Ben Dover as some papers wrongly called him) is only the latest twist. Earlier this year, the Tory MEPs lost both their leader (Giles Chichester MEP) and their chief whip following allegations about breaking the rules on claiming expenses.

At the time, Cameron sent his financial troubleshooter Hugh Thomas to investigate. He can't have investigated very far, as it's only now that firm action as been taken against Dover following the European Parliament's own investigation. What they found was overlooked by Cameron's man. Is this because some of the money found its way into Conservative party coffers?

All this comes on top of UKIP, who have seen no less than a quarter of the MEPs they elected in 2004 get into trouble, one (Ashley Mote) even serving time in jail.

If UKIP and the Conservatives had followed Labour's example and had their accounts reviewed annually by an external independent auditor, then maybe none of this would have happened.

UKIP struggles to get anything right

An irate constituent has passed on to me a leaflet she has received from the so-called UK Independence Party which, she says, contains a dozen lies on the front page alone. She points out that it says:

• That the European Union "has its own army". Oh yes? Could you please name a single general, colonel or major in that army?

• That the EU has its own police force. Eh? Europol, like Interpol, helps national police forces to co-ordinate, but is not a separate police force, as UKIP well knows.

• That the EU "is trying to seize even more powers in order to create a centralised European super-state". But the EU only has powers that are conferred on it by unanimous agreement of all the member states. That is why the "centralised superstate" is myth, as illustrated by the facts that the entire EU budget is less than 1% of GDP and the European Commission has fewer employees than Leeds City Council. Some superstate!

• That "when the UK government first signed us up to the fledgling EU back in the 1970s they assured us it was all about free trade and free travel". No they didn't. The government white paper back then was very clear that it was about more than free trade (We were actually leaving a free trade area (EFTA) in order to join!) and was an important political project.

• It says "they told us nothing about all the extra political powers which Brussels was set to grab from Westminster", quoting as examples the EU’s legal system, judiciary and legislature. Yet these all pre-existed our accession to the EU and are, actually, welcome parts of it, implying as they do the rule of law (rather than the rule of the most powerful), and democracy (an elected parliament).

• They say that "Britain should be ruled by our parliament in Westminster not by an undemocratic bureaucracy in Brussels". But Britain is indeed run by a parliament (one chamber of which is elected) in Westminster, albeit one dominated by the executive. And the EU is run by an elected parliament and the Council of Ministers (composed of the elected governments of each country), not by its bureaucracy (which is anyway quite small compared to Whitehall).

The leaflet also goes on to crow about the 12 seats UKIP gained in the 2004 European elections (as many as the Liberal Democrats), but remains totally silent on what happened to these 12 members: one going to jail for benefit fraud (Ashley Mote), one leaving UKIP to found another party, which he then also left (Kilroy Silk), one being suspended pending a police inquiry into misuse of parliamentary expenses (Tom Wise) etc. etc. Wonder why?

Dan Hannan on Iceland

Sadly the financial crisis continues to hit Iceland hard as it battles to keep its head above the water, seeing its currency collapse and desperately seeking foreign loans, while West Ham's owner Bjorgofur Gudmundsson is, according to the Daily Telegraph, facing the collapse of his Samson Holdings company, having already lost £230million.

Meanwhile, several prominent Icelanders, including possibly Iceland's most famous national, Bjork, has called for the country to join the safe haven of the EU and the euro, the idea of which will appall Tory MEP Dan Hannan.

A long time fan of Iceland, Hannan spent his stag night there so he could enjoy himself outside the EU (though obviously not outside most EU regulations, which Iceland follows as a member of the EEA, though with no say in shaping them).

And well done to the Fabian's Next Left blog which has dug up an astonishing article Hannan wrote for the Spectator in 2004.

In it he writes: "Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members...

"They understand that there is a connection between living in an independent state and living independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth. Long may they remain so."

Quite spectacularly wide of the mark!

Parliament adopts report to tackle European City Guide scams

I was delighted this morning when the Parliament's Petitions Committee unanimously adopted a report by Maltese Christian Democrat, Simon Busuttil, on the European City Guide and other misleading business directories, a subject on which I have blogged on before.

I have been the Shadow spokesman for the Socialist group on this report. Simon has done an excellent job, and the report adopted by committee is a good one. In particular, the report calls on the European Commission to ensure that all countries in the EU are implementing and enforcing the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive adequately.

It also calls on the Commission to follow the example of Austria which has specifically extended its Unfair Commercial Practices legislation to business directories which use the methods of the ECG, and propose amendments to the Misleading Advertising Directive specifically to prohibit advertising in business directories unless prospective clients are clearly informed that such adverts are solely an offer for a contract against payment. Such a change would close the legal loopholes that are currently used by the European City Guide and other fraudulent business directories.

Above all, this report demonstrates that scams like the European City Guide must be stopped. It also, again, emphasises that this a problem that crosses borders and each year thousands of businesses, charities and voluntary groups across Europe are tricked into signing up to what looks like a perfectly innocent business directory. In reality they are tricked into a complex contact and face aggressive demands for money and no chance to cancel the contract.

The Busutill report, which will probably be debated and voted on the floor of the Parliament in December, is not the end of the matter. While we work to pressure the Commission to eradicate the problem through law, we must also use the opportunity to raise awareness to victims to whom the advice about the ECG and other directory scams remains the same: don't fill in the forms and refuse to pay them any money, and if people receive any suspicious forms from such companies they should rip them up. For more information, check this video link.


<

Obama's victory and meeting with MPs and Lords

I guess there's scarcely a blogger out there today who's not commenting on Barack Obama's election victory. And what a victory speech! Also impressive was John McCain's concession speech, a model in graciousness, that losing candidates in many other parts of the world would do well to emulate.

Meanwhile, I spoke today to the all-party Europe group of MPs and Lords at Westminster. Support for the reform of the EU, as embodied in the Lisbon Treaty, remains strong there. The large majorities approving it in both the Commons and the Lords have been emulated in 24 other countries. The sole rejection has been Ireland. How that might be dealt with was the subject of my blog last Wednesday, 29 October.

Why UKIP is just not credible in distancing itself from BNP

For all of UKIP's attempts to distance itself from the BNP, the latest being the high-profile announcement that it would not enter into an electoral pact with them, the fact remains that the two parties have overlapping membership, and similar philosophies.

It was telling that the electoral pact was proposed by UKIP activist Buster Mottram, whose links with the BNP are well known and long-standing. Indeed, Nigel Farage, when questioned about Mottram's past as a campaigner for the BNP's forerunner, the National Front, flippantly batted away the question, saying that these were no more than "youthful indiscretions". So much for Farage's claims to be watchful over BNP "infiltration" of UKIP if he can't even spot one in his ranks!

It seems that UKIPs indecision about their links with the BNP has reached the level of their National Executive. Although UKIP have claimed that the BNP pact offer was rejected 'unanimously' by their NEC, tucked away at the bottom of their press release was a note announcing that that two members of UKIPs NEC, Eric Edmond and David Abbott, were removed from their positions yesterday - presumably because they supported the pact. As UKIPwatch said yesterday, this is either a spectacular coincidence or yet another example of Nigel Farage's particular interpretation of the phrase 'party democracy'.

But this is no surprise to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at UKIP. After all, UKIP and the BNP have a habit of swapping members and candidates. For example, at the last European elections, four BNP candidates were former UKIP members or candidates: Dr Peter Lane - BNP candidate in the South East region, Dr Alan Patterson - BNP lead candidate in the North East region and a former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Hexham at the 2001 general election, Roger Robertson - BNP candidate in the South East region and Matt Single - BNP lead candidate in the Eastern region.

Two of UKIPs current MEPs, Jeffrey Titford and Mike Nattrass, are
former members of the far-Right, anti-immigration New Britain Party, which urged the repatriation of immigrants. It's also worth pointing out that a number of UKIP officials and candidates, for example, Andrew Moffatt (former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Beaconsfield at the 2001 general election) and Martyn Heale (Chairman, UKIP Thanet South), are, like Buster Mottram, former activists of the BNP's forerunner, the NF.

So closely intertwined are the two parties that, in 2004, John Brayshaw was found to be serving as the Chairman of UKIPs Vale of York branch (since October 2003) while simultaneously serving as BNP National Treasurer! Indeed, according to Andrew Edwards, a UKIP official who was expelled from the party for trying to publicise the links between the two parties, Brayshaw was also UKIP-BNP “pact liaison officer for the north”.

In some ways, UKIPs links with the BNP were neatly illustrated at last year's UKIP conference, when their fascist comrades paid a visit to hand out leaflets and literature to the several hundred delegates. According to a BNP spokesman at the time, "a substantial proportion of BNP activists are themselves former UKIP members". Meanwhile, Nigel Farage continues to parrot that UKIP are a 'non racist' party. Pull the other one Mr Farage, it has bells on it.

Press hyperbole on pesticides detracts from a serious debate

The British press has been at its hyperbolic and inaccurate best this morning. The issue in question is on the proposed directive to re-classify pesticides that comes before the European Parliament's Agriculture committee this week.

The Daily Telegraph started the bidding, declaring that "plans to cut the use of pesticides in European farming could double the price of vegetables", a bid that was matched by the Scottish Daily Record. Not to be outdone, the Daily Express out-trumped them both by stating that "hard-pressed families' fruit and vegetable bills will triple under controversial EU plans", adding that "the number of crops grown in Britain is set to be slashed if bureaucrats give the go-ahead".

Now, if any of the so-called "journalists" that penned this copy had bothered to do their homework, they might have come to somewhat different conclusions.

First of all, we are talking about proposals to phase out dangerous pesticides in our food that carry significant health risks.

Secondly, any such pesticides would not be immediately banned. Instead, most of them would remain on the market until 2016 to allow safer alternative products to be developed, while the process of gaining authorisation for a new farming pesticide will be made much quicker and easier. Even then, if the 2016 timeframe is not sufficient to develop new products, the current proposals provide a further 5 year derogation, to minimise adverse effects on agriculture and crop yields.

In other words, the proposed directive is expressly designed to prevent any adverse effects on the agricultural sector that would lead to higher food prices. There are certainly issues with the proposal - my Labour colleagues and I are not happy with some over-zealous aspects which we will seek to amend - but it is a question of getting the right balance in the detail. What a shame that these newspapers chose to create a scare story that must have had families up and down the country choking on their morning corn-flakes.