How one Yorkshire company is helping businesses export to the EU

Yesterday I had the pleasure of opening the new premises of a pioneering young company, based in Salts Mill, just five minutes walk from where I live in Saltaire. It is The European Marketing Agency (TEMA)and which specialises in helping Yorkshire & Humber firms in accessing the European market by offering translation, interpretation, market support and advice.

Apparently, many firms, when they first begin to export, focus just on the English speaking world, believing that language and other barriers make it difficult to export to the rest of Europe. Yet we are part of the world's largest market offering us huge possibilities to export to other European countries - tariff free, quota free and with compatible regulations. TEMA helps small and medium sized enterprises overcome any linguistic or psychological barriers they have in accessing that huge market - and one whose purchasing power is, thanks to the soaring value of the euro against the pound, still growing, and right on our doorstep.

In just three years, TEMA has grown from a staff of three to a staff of over 30 and they offer services in almost every European language. They can be a catalyst for a huge expansion of Yorkshire & Humber exports to the rest of Europe.

Some much needed balance to Open Europe's claims on regulation

Further to my post yesterday on dubious stories about the EU, Open Europe has recently launched a paper called 'Out Of Control' which focuses on the costs of EU regulation.

It of course produces some juicy statistics which they know the right-wing papers will eat up, but much of their research is flawed.

The European Movement has published my own briefing on regulation and Open Europe's claims, which you can read here.

EU scare stories coincide with Euro election build-up

First, Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph correspondent in Brussels, fills in a lull in interesting stories coming his way, by reporting that "MEPs" want to build a swimming pool in the parliament at taxpayers' expense. Never mind that the idea has already been rejected bt the Parliament's bureau. It is sufficient that one French Green party member continues to support it, for Bruno to generate his headline, which has inevitably been taken by many readers as meaning that the parliament has decided to waste money on a luxury - the opposite of what it really did. Already, newspapers across Europe, from Athens based "New Europe" to Scotland on Sunday repeating and embellishing the story.

Then, of course, several British tabloids report that MEPs could become millionaires if they were to divert their expenses into their own pocket. Never mind that Labour MEPs, recently followed by the Conservatives and the LibDems, have their accounts reviewed by independent auditors to make that impossible. Never mind that this story is a re-hash of one last year, about an alleged abuse by a number of MEPs, which spurred on a reform of the Parliament's own system. The key thing is to implant in the public mind the image of MEP = corruption. Expect more of this as Eurosceptics seek to discredit the whole Parliament ahead of June's elections.

Not to be outdone, UKIP indulged in their own distortions this week by saying that Parliament's President Pottering had endorsed their claim that 75 percent of legislation in our countries is EU law. He did nothing of the sort. EU law is, according to most studies, a much lower proportion (9 percent according to the House of Commons library, 6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament). But such low figures undermine UKIP's claim that we are creating a centralised superstate.

So they have misinterpreted a comment by Pottering that 75 percent of EU legislation (i.e. of the proportion that IS adopted at EU level) is adopted by the European Parliament (through the co-decision procedure with the Council of Ministers) and that this will rise to (nearly) 100 percent with the Lisbon treaty, to imply that he said that 75 percent of legislation in Europe is EU legislation.

UKIP (unless they are even more stupid than most people think) obviously know that that is not what Pottering was saying - it is clear from the context and in his original German (though not in the English subtitles used on UKIP's video). But again, why let the facts spoil a scare story?

Klaus's rant raises the noise level but loses the argument

The Czech President Vaclav Klaus today spouted a set of standard eurosceptic clichés in his disappointing and frankly embarrassing diatribe to the European Parliament today. While some MEPs (including Czechs)left the chamber in disgust, most sat in astonished silence, while only the far-right and some of the Tories applauded.

In claiming that the EU deals with matters that should be left to the national governments, he seemed blissfully unaware that no EU policy or legislation is adopted without the agreement of those same national governments in the EU Council of Ministers.

By making ludicrous and offensive comparisons to communist parliaments of Cold War eastern europe, which had no opposition to the government, he brought laughter from a European Parliament most of whose members are indeed from opposition parties in each Member State. Unlike other international structure such as NATO, the WTO and the UN, which are all run solely by governments, the EU, by having an elected parliament, chosen by proportional representation, has members from across the political spectrum, both in government and opposition.

Thankfully, the (ceremonial, not executive) President was disavowed yesterday by the lower chamber of his own national parliament, the Czech chamber of deputies, when it approved the Lisbon treaty by 125 votes to 61 despite his efforts to oppose it. Klaus may be attempting to style himself as the next icon around which eurosceptics can rally, but cliché-ridden rants won't win him any arguments.

Election slogans

I see that the weekly newspaper "New Europe" (one of the many publications that cross my desk, but a remarkable one for the breadth of its coverage, with pages covering the week's events in every European country, from the 27 EU countries to Ukraine, Georgia, Iceland, Turkey, Belarus and others) is organising a competition for the most original slogan for the next European elections. They have four categories:

- Best European Slogan, most likely to get people to vote (example cited: There's 27 countries now - do your part and vote in the EU elections)

- Funniest slogan, most likely to make us laugh (example cited: Go vote - it's free and only happens every 5 years)

- Most caustic slogan, most likely to make us cringe (example cited: vote, vote, vote, or there's going to be no-one to spend your money)

- Dirtiest slogan (no example cited!)

Sounds fun. Entries via their website http://www.neurope.eu/slogan or emailed to slogan@neurope.eu

UKIP's alliance with Geert Wilders proves a stark point

Another hole has been blown in UKIP's attempts to describe themselves as a non-racist party, with their invitation to the racist Dutch politician Geert Wilders who has been banned by the Home Office from entering the UK on the grounds that he would incite hatred and endanger public security.

Mr Wilders is the leader of the so-called Freedom Party in the Netherlands and has been ordered by the Dutch courts to stand trial against charges of inciting hatred by making the most inflammatory kind of anti-Islamic statements. He has compared the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf describing it as a "fascist book" and called for it to be banned. He was invited to show his film Fitna, which links the Koran to terrorism, at the House of Lords by UKIP peer Lord Pearson.

It is particularly sickening that UKIP and Mr Wilders are making themselves to be martyrs in this case, claiming that they are being denied the right to free speech. This is fatuous and they know it. In the same way that the likes of Abu Hamza have been arrested for inciting hatred and violence in Britain, so should Mr Wilders be barred from showing and then discussing a film that, in the words of Dutch Prime Minister Jens Balkenende, serves "no purpose other than to offend".

It is also revealing that Mr Wilders is that sort of character with whom UKIP would ally. Among his key policy platform include proposals to end the admittance of asylum seekers, ban Islamic schools, halt all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands and pay all settled immigrants to leave. These ideas would not be out of place in a BNP manifesto.

All of which provides further evidence that UKIP and their allies are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and extremist. Lord Pearson has had the brass neck to describe the Home Office decision as "weak", "unacceptable" and, believe it or not, "appeasement". On the contrary, what is unacceptable is that UKIP should court such a man and then have the nerve to describe themselves as 'non-racist' and 'non-sectarian'. Such statements should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

End testing on primates

Finally, last November the European Commission announced the long awaited revision of the directive on the use of animals in experiments. The revision of this directive, which is over 20 years out-of-date, is great news for the animal world and humans alike.

The directive, which is currently being examined by the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee, contains improvements to the conditions under which animals for experimentation are kept. It also commits the EU to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific experimentation.

I am, however, dismayed to discover that the Commission has failed to set a timetable to end the use of primates in experimentation. Although the proposal introduces more stringent criteria for testing on non-human primates, there are a number of loopholes which permit the continual use of primates for testing.

The use of monkeys and apes in testing is a barbaric practice. Not only are there ethical questions over the use of animals in testing, but also testing on primates also often produces inconsistent results and with scientific development providing real alternatives is utterly indefensible in today's society. These highly intelligent creatures are often confined in appalling conditions and subject to rigorous invasive procedures causing varying amounts of pain, suffering and distress.

In the Parliament we need to show our support for the complete phase out of the use of primates for experimentation without the current loopholes in the Commission's proposal. With 55% of Euro MEPs having signed the original Written Declaration 40/2007 (which called for an urgent end to the use of great apes and wild-caught monkeys in experiments, and the establishment of a timetable to bring an end to the use of all primates in experiments) we can hope that this practice will soon be phased out in Europe, setting a global precedent.

For more information about the proposal and the effect on primates please see Animal Defenders International website: http://www.savetheprimates.org/

Libertas a pan-European political party? What a farce!

The handling of whether Declan Ganley's private company Libertas, already masquerading as a pressure group in Ireland, should be allowed to register as a European political party and gain public funding, has been completely farcical.

On Monday, the European Parliament’s Bureau, made up of the President and the 14 Vice-Presidents, examined their application. To qualify for funding as a European political party, an organisation must have elected representatives in he national parliaments or in the European parliament in at least one quarter of the member states. Libertas claimed to have that, producing signatures from just 7 countries - all elected originally for other parties.

The bureau decided to approve the application. Although it seems perverse to award public money and recognition as a pan-European party to an organisation that has no members and has never put up candidates in an election before, the bureau presumably felt that they Libertas met the formal criteria. The decision at least allowed the Parliament to avoid any charges of bias against eurosceptics.

Since then, the waters have been distinctly muddied. First, an Estonian Liberal MP, Igor Grazin, who was one of the signatories to establish Libertas, and whose party is already affiliated to the European Liberal Party, denied having signed any such papers. Yesterday, he was joined by Bulgarian MP Mintcho Hristov. So far only one of the alleged supporters (Finnish MP Timo Soini) has admitted to having joined Libertas, stressing that he had joined in a "personal capacity" and that his national political party were definitely not affiliates!

There are also questions about the other alleged signatories. One, Lord Alton of Liverpool is a (crossbench) peer in the House of Lords and is therefore not elected, while the three MEPs (Phillippe De Villiers, Jean Marie Couteaux and Georgios Geourgiou) are all currently members of the IND-DEM in the European Parliament and,will, presumably be campaigning under that banner in the European elections this June.

The leaders of the political groups (Conference of Presidents) today took the only sensible decision and requested the Bureau to suspend the decision, pending an investigation of the signatures. If they are indeed false, it would amount to an attempt to defraud the taxpayer.

But the controversy over the signatures is still only part of the problem. In my mind, there is clear conflict if members who are affiliated to one party can simultaneously affiliate to another to get extra funding. It would effectively mean that, if I wanted to, there is nothing to stop me and a six colleagues from other countries, maybe all from the Socialist Group, setting up our own "party", and instantly gaining access to some 200,000 euros of taxpayers’ money for campaigning purposes, even if we intended to stand for our original party and not the new one!

It would be astonishing if the Bureau had approved Libertas’s application without verifying that signatories were genuine and without taking legal advice on whether a member affiliated to one party is able to count as an affiliate for another. If this is the case, then they have let down parties with genuine members and potentially wasted public money on an organisation that is really nothing more than a phoney pressure group.Post date and time

Has the snow caused Hannan to abandon democracy?

It’s good to see that Dan Hannan spent his Monday enjoying the February snow that has brought much of Britain to a standstill this week, while his fellow MEPs fought their way through the blizzards to Strasbourg. But slightly less impressive is the product of the ‘blue-skies thinking’ the time off allowed him to do.

In it, Dan extols the virtue of replacing the democratically elected European Parliament with an assembly of appointed national politicians tasked with meeting for a few days a month. He adds that when this operation existed (up until direct elections were introduced in 1979) it was cheaper than the current Parliament and would be “considerably less likely to generate unwanted laws” - an odd remark for a Parliament that does not propose legislation, but approves, amends or rejects legislation proposed by the Commission or Council.

The argument that the EU is not democratic enough, so let's abolish the one EU institution that is directly elected, is bizarre, especially for someone who makes great play out of his claims to be a great democrat.

The European Parliament brings political pluralism (comprising MEPs not just from the governing parties in each country, but also, even mainly, opposition parties) providing a different perspective from governments in the Council of Ministers. Without the European Parliament, there would indeed be a danger of the EU being dominated by bureaucrats and diplomats.

The pre-1979 model of the Parliament was ineffective, because it was part-time and because whole countries could be un-represented if there was a key event in their national parliament keeping those members away.

As to holding the the Commission to account, a part-time Parliament that only met for three days per month would be a complete waste of time. Just as was the case in the 1970s, it would be marginalised and ignored by the Council of ministers and the Commission.

So much for enhancing democracy!

Protectionism will jeopardise more jobs

The outcry over British jobs going to foreign workers is understandable if indeed the Italian company that won the tender for work at the Total oil refinery has a discriminatory policy (which would be illegal under European law) not to employ British workers.

This claim must be investigated urgently, as must allegations that the company concerned is circumventing British labour standards by undercutting pay, conditions and health and safety standards, which would also be illegal under European law (apart from one major loophole, of which more below).

But it cannot be claimed that only British companies should have been able to tender, or that the company should be obliged to take on only British citizens. As one national newspaper reminded us today, there are two million British citizens living and working in the rest of the EU, but only one million people from other EU countries living in the UK. A protectionist or discriminatory policy would rebound at put those British jobs at risk.

What can be and should be investigated is the wider claim that rulings from the European Court of Justice have created a loophole, underminding the intention of EU legislation that was intended to ensure that companies cannot circumvent national rules about pay and working conditions by bringing in employees from abroad employed under less stringent rules of another country. Foreign contractors who employ their own staff on a temporary project are bound by the EU's "posted workers" directive (not, as the Daily Telegraph said, the "postal workers directive!), which stipulates that the foreign employees must enjoy the same rights as local workers, not undercut them. I have blogged before about how certain court rulings have undermined one aspect of these protections, and I have also pointed out how small changes in the law can rectify the problem.

The expression "British jobs for British workers" means making sure that British workers are able to access good employment opportunities, equipped with the right qualifications, and without any discrimination against them. To take it further and argue that jobs should only be given to nationals of the country concerned would have dangerous consequences (e.g. you must be German to work in Germany, you must be Irish to work in Ireland, Spanish to work in Spain, etc) that would ultimately jeopardise British and other workers.