2008 - a good year for the EU?

Mark Mardell, the BBC’s Europe editor, said in his blog today that “For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.”

He focuses on foreign affairs, with the EU brokering the Georgia ceasefire, setting up its Kosovo mission and sending a joint fleet of warships to the Somalia coast to protect shipping from pirates. He also refers to the financial crisis and the fact that “the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound” and all EU countries eventually reached “agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy”.

In my view, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package, and he could have dwelt more on that. The package does not just proclaim targets, but brings in measures to achieve them. It creates binding Europe-wide laws on emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, carbon trading and so on. It finances pilot projects for carbon capture and storage. It brings aviation in to the Emission Trading Scheme, which it strengthens.
This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.

But, as ever in the BBC, Mark feels he has to give a sop to the eurosceptics. He buys their line on the question of the Irish response to the Lisbon treaty and does not even mention the fact that almost every other member country has approved the treaty. He refers to the Irish government’s plan to seek concessions and then hold a new referendum as “the leaders of EU countries and the commission deciding that Ireland should vote again” – sorry, Mark, neither the other countries nor the Commission have any such power, only the Irish parliament can decide, if it wants, whether to hold a new referendum.

He quotes approvingly (“a stroke of brilliance”) the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" and refers to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut". Come off it, Mark! The EU can only change its rulebook (the treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain one single 'No'.

As it turns out, Ireland, as the single 'No', has offered to reconsider (it's still their choice), in exchange for other countries trying to meet their concerns (e.g. on the number of Commissioners, on neutrality, taxation, conscription, etc). It is actually Ireland that can, if it wants, “bully” the other countries into making concessions, not the other way around!

In fact, as ever in a grouping of 27 sovereign countries, there will be an attempt to find a compromise, to bridge the gap, to meet halfway and to try and find a solution that is acceptable to all 27 countries. This is not to ignore the result of the Irish referendum - it is to respond to the result, look at the concerns that were expressed and try to meet them. I very much hope that will be sufficient to enable a positive result in a new referendum to be held in the autumn, when it will be up to the Irish people to make their choice. Is that so unreasonable?It was, after all, the leader of the NO campaign who said the result was a mandate to the Irish government to negotiate a better deal.

Working Time saga set to continue

So, the saga of working time will continue (see my blog of monday).

Parliament today amended, instead of approved, Council's position, which means no legislation has been adopted. Instead, negotiations continue to seek a solution acceptable to both Parliament and Council.

In Britain, the trade unions, doctors, the BMA and others are happy with the amendments adopted by Parliament, while the government, the CBI and many businesses are not. However, all must now focus on seeking the agreement necessary for legislation to be adopted, with the give and take that that implies.

Parliament supports report to outlaw directory scams

After years of campaigning the European Parliament has finally adopted a devastating verdict against directory scams like the European City Guide. Maltese MEP Simon Busutill's report was adopted by a massive majority of 632 in favour and just 4 against, with only 12 abstentions.

The report strongly condemns the methods of directory scams and called on all EU countries to follow Austria's example in specifically outlawing the practises used by groups like the European City Guide. This can be helped by the Commission presenting draft proposals to extend the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to specifically prohibit advertising in business directories unless these entries warn prospective clients that they are being offered a contract against payment. It also demands that the European Commission ensure that the all countries are correctly implementing and enforcing the Misleading Advertising Directive, which these scams clearly fall foul of, and include a "black" list of misleading practices - a measure which would help increase public awareness of these scamming organisations.

But this vote is just the start. We still need to convince the European Commission and Member States to play their part and I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe the scamsters will simply give up. But it is, hopefully, the start of a co-ordinated effort to ensure that such fraudulent business directories are put out of business.

Nonetheless, there may be still a lot of work to do but the message from the European Parliament is clear: scams like the European City Guide are unacceptable and illegal.

I must also pay tribute to Jules Woodell, who runs StopECG, and has worked tirelessly for years against the scams and deserves plenty of recognition for the huge part he has played in organising victims into such a strong group that they successfully campaigned for a report into the scams by the Petition's Committee.

Away from the issue itself, the 12 MEPs elected for UKIP in 2004, astonishingly for even them, managed to take four different positions on the Busuttil report. Ashley Mote abstained, Kilroy and Tom Wise voted in favour, Roger Knapman voted against and the rest didn't vote at all (though I understand Godfrey Bloom was kept home by a serious family commitment). I was also disappointed to see that Tory Edward McMillan Scott abstained on the report, although I hope that his vote was a case of just pressing the wrong button.

Decision time for EP over Working Time

An enormous political and media storm has arisen on the issue of the Working Time Directive and whether the European Parliament will vote to phase out the right for individual workers (though often under pressure from employers) to opt out of the 48 hour maximum average working week.

Yet the position of the two sides is actually not that far apart. The Council of Ministers, with UK government support, wants a tighter definition of the 48 hour limit (averaged over three months), but allow individual workers to opt out, subject to stricter safeguards than there are at the moment. The European Parliament has a looser definition of the 48 hours (averaged over 12 months - which implies considerably more flexibility than three months, which will cater for the needs of most industries and services), but with the opt out gradually disappearing.

In other words, all concerned are searching for the right balance between protection and flexibility. If Parliament does indeed amend the Council's position, and Council then does not accept this, it should not be beyond the bounds of the possible to negotiate a compromise ahead of the third reading.

Let us not forget that this directive was introduced originally well over a decade ago (when a British Conservative government, at the time, abstained in the Council of Ministers rather than vote against it) in response to growing medical evidence that sustained and long term excessive working hours have considerable and negative health implications for the workers concerned. Not to mention the implications
for the rest of us if we are, for instance, operated on by a tired doctor or run over by a tired lorry driver. The Clapham Junction Railway Accident, in November 1989which killed 35 people and injured hundreds, is one of too many examples, where the investigation states the direct cause ‘was undoubtedly the wiring errors made’ by the electrician due to ‘the constant repetition of weekend work in addition to work throughout the week which has blunted his working edge, his freshness and his concentration.’ In the three months before the accident the electrician had had one day off over the entire period.

Opt outs are only possible at the moment where provided for under national legislation and with the explicit agreement of the worker concerned. Under the new proposals, there will be extra safeguards to prevent employers pressurising workers to opt out (Council of Ministers version) or the opt out will be ended in entirely, but balanced by having an annual average, thereby enabling much longer working weeks for up to half the year or more (Parliament's version).

Of course, there is a case to say that a young healthy person in a job that is not excessively physically demanding and that does not endanger the health of others should be able to choose to work longer if they genuinely wish to do so. The Council's position caters better for those cases. But there are also numerous and well documented cases of employees being pressurised to work such longer hours against their will (polling evidence shows that a majority of people working more than 48 hours would prefer not to do so). The European Parliament's position caters
better for protecting them. Surely it s possible to reconcile the two?

A successful summit

After frantic negotiations, the European Council summit has ended with success on a number of fronts, with agreement on how to tackle both long and short-term political problems.

The summit ended with agreements that will enable the EU to meet its previously agreed targets (to cut carbon emissions by 20%, to increase use of renewable energy by 20%, and also achieve a cut of 20% in energy use by 2020 as compared with 1990 levels).

Given the strident opposition from several eastern European countries and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, it is an impressive feat that a deal was reached. Indeed, John Kerry as US representative at the UN climate conference in Poznan, has already described the deal as "an enormous act of leadership". The package also enables the EU to revive its pledge to cut emissions by 30% provided the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next year agrees to a new deal as well.

The other pressing problem facing the summit was how to tackle the financial crisis and economic downturn. Despite the apparent spat between our Government and the Germans on how best to respond, EU leaders have announced a €200 billion stimulus package - the equivalent of roughly 1.5% of total gross domestic product in the EU. Although the precise details of the package will be ironed out over the next few days, they will include a combination of tax cuts,extra financial support for small businesses and an acceleration of public spending projects. Although individual Member States will be able to opt-out of specific measures with which they disagree, it is good news that, rather than leave all countries to 'go it alone' and so increasing economic turmoil, EU countries have come together to seek a co-ordinated response.

The discussion of how to salvage the Lisbon Treaty was, to most, the least important item on the agenda at this week's European summit - no one would argue that the EU's institutional framework is more important than the future of the planet and mitigating the effects of the economic downturn. But the deal struck maintains the package of institutional reforms that will allow the EU to be better able to deal with these long-term political problems. As I reported yesterday, the Irish government can claim a notable diplomatic victory and the 27 governments can show that the issues raised in the no campaign have been listened to and responded to.

Ireland gains major concession

So, it seems that Ireland has scored a notable victory at today’s European Council in persuading the other Member States to revert to the system whereby every Member State has a member of the European Commission.

It will be recalled that this was a major issue in the Irish referendum, and any attempt to respond to the concerns expressed by the ‘No’ voters would have to address this issue, among others.

Nonetheless, I am surprised that every other country agreed to give up on this so quickly. All governments had agreed that the size of the European Commission should be cut down, as successive enlargements of the European Union turned the Commission from a compact executive into a miniature assembly. Several governments were reported as being reluctant to giving up on this reform.

However, at least it is a change that affects every country equally, and reverting to one Commissioner per country can be done without amending the Lisbon Treaty (whereas it cannot be done under the current treaties, which require a smaller Commission as of next year).

Meeting the other Irish concerns will require further negotiation, but at least the Irish government has come up with a list of demands. The other Member States must meet these concerns and show that they are not ignoring, but responding to, the ‘No’ vote in the Irish referendum.

Strange silence over Bingley by-election

I'm not surprised that there was little press coverage of the Bingley by-election for Bradford Council that took place last week. It was, of course, a small matter in the greater scheme of things.

But I can't help feeling that the silence, even in much of the local and regional media, is because it was such a poor result for the Conservatives. Their majority in a "safe" Conservative seat was halved. The only party to increase its share of the vote was Labour, by several percent. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

EU closing in on vital climate change package

This week's plenary session in Brussels was dominated by the climate change and energy package. The negotiations between Parliament, Council and Commission to agree a deal at first reading in Strasbourg in two weeks time have been proceeding well. There is still some way to go, however, and it is vital that all sides make the last effort to reach an agreement.

To be acceptable to Parliament the package of measures must be sufficiently vigorous for us to achieve the agreed EU targets of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 20%increase in renewables by the year 2020 - but also to enable us to go further and raise this up to 30% in the event of an international agreement. I am also pleased that there seems to be agreement that the biofuels target should be subject to strict sustainability criteria, ensuring that biofuels would not have a detrimental impact on food prices.

The debate also displayed some of the worst aspects of the European Tory delegation. Roger Helmer ignored the hard science of man-made climate change caused by our high carbon emissions, claiming that "the threat is not posed by global warming, but by policy responses which would "have a devastating economic effect". Such arguments are not only scientifically bone-headed but also economically suspect. The sad irony is that the reaction to Tories like Helmer on climate change is similar to their proposed response to the current financial crisis: do nothing. But doing nothing on climate change now could, as with failing to stimulate our economy, cause widespread human suffering and serious economic decline further down the line. In taking action now, we can not only negate these potential costs but also, as exists already in some parts of the world and several European countries, develop 'green' jobs and a 'green' economy.

Some like Helmer and UKIP describe the climate change package as being extreme. If so, then I am an extremist - but let us be clear: moderation in the face of a threat to the very future of this planet would be no virtue and vigorous action no vice.

Yorkshire brewers are a big hit in Brussels

Yesterday I was delighted to attend a reception organised by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), and the British Beer Club in the European Parliament of which I am Chairman.

Some 60 beers from across the North of England were on display, and I am delighted to say that the lion's share were from Yorkshire. The Black Sheep brewery, Coors, Great Heck brewery, Morissey Fox brewery, Tiger Tops brewery, Wold Top brewery, the York brewery and the Yorkshire Dales brewery all brought their beers sample.

While the event was very well attended, with a number of Labour and Tory MEPs (though a distinct lack of any Liberal Democrats) it was particularly interesting to see three different classes of UKIP MEP at the event: ex-UKIP, suspended UKIP and a couple of remaining UKIP members (and equally surprising to see so many of them in Brussels but beer at least attracted them in a way that parliamentary debates rarely do!).

Although the reception itself was a fun and convivial occasion, there are several serious issues at the heart of the event. The British pub industry is in difficulties, not least because of the increasing availability of very cheap alcohol sold in supermarkets and corner shops, a practice which, apart from driving many small brewers out of the market, irresponsibly encourages binge drinking and damages the reputation of the drinks industry as a whole.

The All-Party Beer Group at Westminster, chaired by my local colleague, Selby MP John Grogan, has conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry into the future of pubs and brewers in Britain and has just published its Community Pub Inquiry. One of their recommendations is for the introduction of a differential between the tax levied on draught beer and that on packaged beers. Consequently, John and the group will be meeting with the Commission today to discuss this and other ideas.

Last night's event should also serve as an eye-opener to our brewers of the massive export opportunities in other European countries. If you go into your local, you will probably find several Belgian beers available: yet only a few years ago, most of these beers were sold only locally in parts of Belgium. They have since managed to take full advantage of the common market and sell across Europe. British brewers have not yet managed this, despite the exceptional quality of many of our beers and, as was amply demonstrated last night, the sheer quantity and wealth of choice. Let's hope that last night which, in addition to British MEPs, researchers and lobbyists, was also attended by several Belgian and Dutch MEPs and drinks industry representatives, will help to change this.