Join my campaign for justice for Revie's Leeds heroes

You might have noticed that on Monday I launched a petition to get UEFA to investigate the 1973 European Cup Winners' Cup final, which Leeds United lost 1-0 to AC Milan. Decision after decision went against Leeds on that day and it has long been suspected that the match was fixed and Leeds were swindled out of the trophy. In fact the game's referee Christos Michas was banned from officiating in European fixtures ever again but Leeds' complaints were ignored.

Staggeringly, with the petition not yet two days old almost 5000 people have already joined the campaign, which just goes to show the strength of feeling about this match and the sense of injustice that still surrounds it.

This is not a matter of being a Leeds United supporter, but is a question of the integrity of football. I would urge all football fans to sign the petition.

Match fixing of course continues to this day, and Leeds were by no means the only victims but the 1973 match has always stuck in my mind as one that clearly finished with a grossly unjust result. If UEFA is to successfully crackdown on bribery and match fixing then they have a duty to show their commitment to the integrity of football and investigate matches strongly suspected of being fixed. If there is any evidence the Leeds-Milan game was fixed then the trophy should be awarded to Leeds.

The petition will be presented to UEFA on May 16th, to coincide with the 36th anniversary of the game.

If you'd like to sign the petition please click here.

You can also show your support by joining the Facebook group here.

Protecting the Amazon

Today, along with other MEPs on the Andean Delegation, I wrote to the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa Delgado, to voice my support for his decision to protect the Ecuadorian Amazon from further destruction.

The Yasuní Park covers an area of 6,100 square kilometres of the Amazon rainforest and is one of the most bio diverse regions in the world. It is home to the Waorani, Kichwa and Shuar communities, some of the few indigenous communities left in the Amazon today. The Park is teeming with rare animal species and plant life.

However, under the rainforest canopy and the rich soil of the Yasuní Park there is oil, and many are keen to exploit the reserves. Nevertheless, President Rafael Correa Delgado, is well aware of the environmental importance of the site and in February of this year he decided to leave the oil of the Yasuní Park unexploited and to establish an indefinite term for this decision (decree No. 1572 of February 2009).

Indeed, allowing development in this area would cause contamination, deforestation, the extinction of cultures. There are severe global implications of developing the largest natural rainforest in the world too. In a time of such concern over the future effects of climate change on human health, we should be supporting efforts to prevent any further deforestation of the world's largest tropical rainforest and river basin.

The Ecuadorian President proposes an alternative to exploiting the area for oil. He appeals to the national and international community for compensation to implement this expensive national decision.

Given the global environmental implications of developing this area, this is not an unreasonable demand. Germany has already committed to promoting the initiative inside the EU and the OECD. The British government, the Spanish and the Italians, as well as multilateral organisations and several high profile individuals have also given their support to the idea.

We can hope that now with the fresh commitment of President Correa of Ecuador to protect the Yasuní Park, international support will be forthcoming, as there is an important global dimension to this issue.

Brown conquers the sceptics in Strasbourg

A busy Strasbourg session was given further excitement with Gordon Brown's arrival this afternoon. The Prime Minister took part in a debate in the Parliament on the preparation of the crucial G20 summit, before meeting with the Labour MEPs and then the Socialist group, and then travelling on to New York for further preparatory talks.

Gordon's passionate speech, which ranged from the need for regulatory reform and investment to deal with the financial crisis to tackling climate change and maintaining overseas development aid, was from the heart and certainly confounded those who claim that he is a eurosceptic - his final sentence called for a "united Europe founded on shared ideals", while he was at pains to stress that he was "proud to be British and proud to be European". Among Socialist colleagues, the consensus was that it was a great speech and he was given a rousing standing ovation from all national delegations in our group and beyond (even managing to get applause from Danny Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Greens).

Eurosceptics were represented by some particularly wild contributions (even by their standards) from Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan. Farage argued that parliamentary democracy doesn't work, neither at Westminster nor in the European Parliament. A bizarre rant, which brought a knowing smile from Gordon!

Mind your language as Tories relish latest Euromyth

A story that neatly illustrates the working methods of the eurosceptics has been in the headlines of several papers this week, not least the Express. An internal guidance document intended for the translation services of the Parliament, advising staff on how best to render certain terms and expressions in other languages in a gender neutral or simply polite way (and also when not to do so if it would lead to distorted grammar and garbled sentences!), has been seized upon by various Conservative and other MEPs to portray it as "the European Union telling us how to speak our own language".

Although clearly not intended for MEPs or the wider public, Philip Bradbourn, Conservative MEP, said "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions" - as if anyone had ever implied the contrary.

Struan Stevenson, the pro-European Scottish MEP who frequently masquerades as a Eurosceptic in the press to keep his right-wing party members happy, said "They seem determined to tell us which words we can use in our own language. It's ludicrous. The thought police are on the rampage". This is on a par with Struan's previous claims that the EU wanted to ban bagpipes - no doubt great for getting coverage in the Scottish press but no step forward for the cause of truth and honesty in politics!

Chris-Heaton Harris meanwhile had the cheek to claim "This really is the sort of rubbish that brings ridicule on the European Parliament", which is exactly what inventing Euromyths is designed to do, and something Tory MEPs obviously enjoy indulging in for a bit of easy press.

The Tories simply cannot stomach even moderately pro-European talk

The following was put up by a Tory on the Conservative Home website - who has been labelled a "Traitor for Being a Pro-European Conservative"!

"As a Conservative campaigner, (I am already working hard to get our London MEPs, headed by Charles Tannock, re-elected. Unlike Mr Helmer, I'll be focussing of the many positive aspects that membership of the EU brings to member states like Britain. Here's a recap of what they are:

Safer and Cheaper Flights

The EU has provided us with not only safer flights but also cheaper flights and increased competition between carriers registered in the Member States. Cheaper flights are the knock-on effect of a huge improvement in air traffic management and increased competition.

Student Exchange Programmes

Within the last 10 years the EU has created different education programmes in order to give students the possibility to experience different national cultures and broaden their personal horizon. Up to now 1.2 million students have benefited from the ERASMUS Programme and many more are expected to experience it in the future.

The Single Market

The Single Market is one of a kind as it guarantees ‘free movement' of people, goods, services and capital. At a practical level, it provides the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU, as well as enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services.

Protection of Intellectual Property

Intellectual property deals with two areas: industrial property and copyrights. Basically, it means that you are not allowed to use somebody else's ideas, for example, if your best friend has written lyrics to a song, you can not publish it in your name. The EU's efforts in this area have resulted in laws aiming at protecting company's or individual's knowledge.

Peace

Peace in Europe was first created when an alliance was made between Germany and France and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. Europe has come along way since with a lasting peace amongst its Member States. International security is now a major issue for the EU: with increasing threats to a peaceful society in different areas of the world, the EU has put in place many policies to combat such problems.

The Euro

The single currency, the Euro, is now part of our everyday life but not all of its benefits are well known. From the practical advantages of travelling with a single currency, to the benefits of economic growth, to the strengthening of the EU international role and its political integration, the introduction of the euro has achieved much more than people expected.

Regional Funds

Unity and solidarity are some of the most significant aims for the EU. One important reason why the European regional policies have been created is because the EU is of the opinion that equal standards and rights should be provided to all citizens.

Cheaper and Better Phone calls

The liberalisation of the telecommunication markets in 1998 and the ongoing development in the field of technology have resulted in a steady decrease in prices within the EU. This means that it is cheaper to call your friends and family and choose between different operators.

Consumer Protection

NEW: Consumer protection and the safety of food in the European Union are two issues that have always gone hand in hand. The Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General's main responsibility is to provide laws and regulations on the safety of food and consumer rights.

A Healthier Europe

The public health issues dealt with by the EU are numerous and cover a number of different areas. They concern both men and women, young and old. The EU has also introduced the European health insurance card that is your guarantee if you should fall ill when going abroad.

Environmental Protection

In the EU, environmental issues including initiatives concerning protection have been underlined as some of the most important points not only for discussion but also for action. For instance, the EU is leading the "Kyoto" drive to reduce the air pollution that causes global warming.

Equal Opportunities - Against Discrimination

The promotion of equal opportunities and the fight against Discrimination are considered some of the most important issues within Europe and many directives have been put in place to combat inequalities that occur in the Member States. 2007 is officially the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. Additionally the "Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010" was launched outlining 6 priority areas for EU action on gender equality.

External Trade

External trade for Europe has always been very important to the success of the European Union. In recent years our level of trade has increased and we are continuing to grow as major players in the world of trade. Today, the EU accounts for 20% of global imports and exports and is now the world's biggest trader."

How to celebrate a book on waste? Throw a champagne party!

Delicious irony today when my staff and I were invited to a champagne reception this evening in one of the Parliament's salons….by, you've guessed it, the Taxpayers' Alliance to launch their book subtly titled "The Great European Rip-Off"!

So the Taxpayers' Alliance are going to highlight what they claim is billions of pounds of waste by profligate EU institution by, erm, splashing out a couple of grand on champagne and nibbles for some parliamentary assistants and lobbyists.

Certainly one for the 'you couldn't make it up' school.

Tories dump EPP in favour of isolation

The Tories' departure from the centre-right EPP has been brought a step closer today, with William Hague and Tim Kirkhope holding a meeting with Joseph Daul to officially serve notice of their intention to form a new group after the elections in June. The meeting will no doubt have been difficult for Tim, who has always been in favour of remaining within the EPP-ED.

However, the Tories are still no clearer about who will join them in this new right-wing group. Apart from some of the Czech ODS members, takers are a bit thin on the ground. Under the rule change which I piloted through the Parliament last summer, political groups must consist of at least 25 members from at least seven Member States. The number of Members is unlikely to be a problem, but finding MEPs from at least six other countries to join could still prove difficult.

Leaving the largest group in the European Parliament to sit in isolation (or with some pretty odd characters) is in any case throwing away power and influence.

Why do it? Because the EPP has some federalists! Yet, it also has many non-federalists, and anyway it is national governments and parliaments that decide on the degree of integration - the European Parliament decides on the content of EU legislation in areas that the EU is already responsible for. On most of this, the Conservatives and other centre-right parties agree.

So symbolism prevails over reality! Britain, which had a strong presence in the two main groups, will now have no presence in one of them (except for those - and I know of at least one - who will not follow Cameron's silly instruction).

At the other end of the Tory delegation, Roger Helmer has produced this poster featuring a semi-naked woman, and (for those who bother reading the poster) a series of outlandish claims about the cost of EU membership drawing on the inaccurate nonsense published by the Taxpayers’ Alliance this week.

Roger makes it clear that he will be using this material to campaign during the European elections, despite the fact that it clearly advocates British withdrawal from the EU – which is completely at odds with Tory party policy. If Helmer is going to campaign on this basis, there is barely a cigarette paper between his politics and UKIP's. It is a mystery why Helmer hasn't done the decent thing and defected. Or is the self-styled 'straight talker' frightened that if he followed his beliefs and defected, he'd be out of a job in June?

Dishonest Taxpayers' Alliance again miss the point

Another week, and another dishonest and misleading ‘report’ about the costs of the EU by a right-wing pressure group. This time the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance has published a book in which they claim that EU membership costs every citizen £2000 a year. Typically, it bases its figures on papers written by Patrick Minford and Ian Milne – both supporters of the Bruges group and both in favour of Britain withdrawing from the EU. Unsurprisingly, given the sources, the figures they claim are rather high. The frustrating thing is that these ‘studies’ are a complete waste of time – they are not designed to find the truth about the cost of regulation, but about feeding eye-catching figures to eurosceptic tabloids (as I pointed out in my reply to another such "study" last week by Open Europe.

Back the real world, the European Parliament yesterday voted to adopt legislation on type approval requirements for motor vehicles. This legislation includes a number of measures that will make cars and roads safer, including tyre pressure monitoring systems, wet-grip requirements for tyres and standards for tyres that will reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Costs will be outweighed by the benefits. Moreover, in this case (and many others), EU regulation means cutting red-tape for business by replacing the 50 or so existing type-approval certificates with just one.

So, will the Taxpayers’ Alliance or Open Europe report this example of ‘good regulation’? Yes, and pigs might fly.

Is there a link between climate change denial and Euroscepticism?

I was interested to see the speakers list at a conference in Chicago doubting the danger of man made climate change. Among them were Tory Roger Helmer, Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker. Apart from being climate change deniers, these men are united by another thing: namely their visceral hatred of the European Union.

There seems to be some correlation between Euroscepticism and climate change denial. Almost the only climate change deniers in the European Parliament are the hard-right of the Tory party – Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan - the entirety of UKIP and a handful of right-wing French and Czech MEPs. These members are also the most vocal Eurosceptics.

It is fascinating that there is a link between these matters. Off the top of my head, I can suggest a couple of theories:

Perhaps it is because tackling man-made climate change has emerged as an issue that cannot be tackled effectively by nation states, but where international or EU action is most effective. It may be that their opposition is not to tackling climate change, but because they worry that it will give the EU more legitimacy.

Another theory is that they are just naturally paranoid. In the same way that they believe the EU to be a massive conspiracy to destroy nation states and replace them with an all-powerful centralised super-state, perhaps they believe that tackling climate change is another attempt by wild-eyed left-wingers and environmentalists to bring capitalism to its knees.

Or, they don't really care about either issue - they just like to be in a controversial minority, against mainstream opinion, because they know this will get them attention and media coverage.

Maybe someone should write a university thesis about it.

Come to think about it, I wonder whether flat-earthers are also Eurosceptic? If so, I expect they will soon be given lavish coverage in some of our newspapers!

Academic Perspectives

The weekend is a good opportunity to escape from some of the glib, superficial coverage of the European Parliament in our press and to look at what the academic world is saying.

One piece that caught my eye was The Myth of Europe's 'Democratic Deficit' by Prof. Andrew Moravcsik of Princeton University, USA, which is a good antidote to some of the wilder claims by Eurosceptics. I don’t always agree with Andy, but his articles are always thought provoking and well worth a read.

I was also flattered to see that Professor Juliet Lodge of the Jean Monnet Centre names me in an article as one of five MEPs who 'have brought the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a legislature with genuine power'. Of course, there are many who have been involved in the long battle to make sure that no EU legislation can be adopted without parliamentary approval, thereby making the EU based not just on inter-governmental co-operation, but on parliamentary democracy. But in recent years, she says, five have stood out: 'The first three are the co-ordinators of the three largest political groups (and have led their Groups on these matters for a decade). They have thus negotiated on behalf of their Groups virtually all of the positions adopted by the Parliament on these issues over the last decade. They have at the same time taken on several other key roles, notably key rapporteurships. It is striking that two of the three are British - Andrew Duff and Richard Corbett.'

Maybe – but it is worth recalling that none of the treaty changes we have put forward could come into force without the approval of each and every national parliament.

A step closer to a ban on seal products

Yesterday MEPs on the Internal Market and Consumer Rights (IMCO) Committee agreed to a ban on the import of seal products deriving from commercial culls.

A majority of 25 MEPs to seven on IMCO voted to strengthen the Commission's proposal calling for an outright ban of products imported from commercial sealing.

Notwithstanding an attempt by Yorkshire & Humber Liberal Democrat MEP, Diana Wallis, who in a failed attempt tried to water down the proposal pushed for a mere labelling scheme, only seven MEPs voted against the report, siding instead with the Canadian hunting and sealing lobby.

This is a sensitive issue, which is close to the hearts of many constituents. It is vitally important for the EU to take a strong stance against this cruel practice and set a global precedent for the banning of seal products from the spring cull.

Indeed, with such a large majority in favour in committee, we can hope that support for the ban will be reinforced when it reaches the full parliament vote next month.

Thank you to all of you who have written to me on this matter and please be assured that I will continue to support a ban in the final vote in the Parliament.

It is ridiculous to rubbish all regulation

Following in Open Europe’s footsteps, their fellow bastion of right-wingery the Institute of Directors (IoD) has brought out a paper claiming that Britain’s labour market is becoming much less flexible as a result of regulation at national and EU level.

The IoD cites 10 major employment regulations which have been introduced by Labour since 1997. No doubt they would like to repeal them all. These include the minimum wage, rules on maternity and paternity pay, rights for part-time and fixed-term workers, increased employee involvement under the EU Works Council Directive and anti-discrimination legislation.

But these rules prevent exploitation at work and ensure some level of work/life balance. Put bluntly, they should exist in any society worth the name.

However, the IoD's claims about the damage such rules are causing to our economy are somewhat undermined by the tables they publish which reveal that the British labour market has a far higher score on the Indicator of Labour Market Adaptability (ILMA) than it did in 1997 and three times higher than 1992 when the Tories were in power. Meanwhile, there is a corresponding increase in the flexibility of the supply of labour.

The IoD, of course, revels in its role as an 'unacceptable face of capitalism', but they share the same blinkered attitude as Open Europe: regulation = bad, deregulation = good. But objectively, regulation is not a zero-sum game. It is about finding a balance between work-place rights and social protection and flexibility for businesses and employees. And regulations don't always cost money and can sometimes even save money. Unintentionally, the IoD research indicates that this balance, with the odd exception, has been found.