No justice for Leeds Utd but progress from UEFA on matchfixing

Despite losing my seat in the European elections, I have followed up the petition that over 12,000 people signed and tried to press UEFA as far as I could.

First, I had the following written response from UEFA:

“We have received your letter and the petition regarding the 1973 Cup Winners Cup Final between Leeds United and AC Milan. This is obviously a subject that is of enormous importance to many people, and we acknowledge and thank each person who took the time to sign this petition. We of course understand the frustration involved, but our room for manoeuvre is constrained by UEFA's Disciplinary Regulations (Article 7), which clearly dictate the statute of limitations. In the case of a game that took place more than 35 years ago, we have long passed the legal time frame in which any action could have been taken.

The fight against match-fixing is a high priority for UEFA and we can only look to the future to put a stop to it. From our perspective, if the results are fixed in advance then football has no further reason to exist. Because of this we are implementing, with all 53 national associations of UEFA, a new system that will monitor some 30,000 matches as from next season - and we are determined to root out the problem.”

Then, I followed this up by travelling to Geneva to meet a number of UEFA officials at their headquarters. I must say that their response was actually sympathetic, and were very impressed by the number of signatures, but they feel constrained by the legal situation. I understand that a few years ago, they took action against Anderlecht when it was discovered, over ten years after the event, that they had bribed a referee in a European match (against Nottingham Forest). However, Anderlecht went to the courts and won against UEFA when the court ruled that the events had taken place too far back (and beyond their statute of limitations of, at that time, 10 years, which they had raised to 20 years, but the court ruled that they cannot raise it and then discipline a club after the original deadline had expired). The same would certainly happen again if they tried to re-open an event of more than 36 years ago. Even most criminal offences have a much shorter cut-off period. I got the impression that they would not be averse to taking on AC Milan (who, let us not forget, have a record of misdemeanours), but that they genuinely feel that their previous court defeat prevents them from doing so.

UEFA did explain to me at great length the measures they are now taking to try to prevent match-fixing (be it through referees or players) happening again. This includes, among other things, monitoring betting patterns, working with the police to infiltrate gangs, bringing in more severe penalties for those who get caught, trying (with difficulty) to regulate players agents, and so on.

Small consolation for those of us who believe the 1973 result should be reversed, but at least they are making serious efforts to stop such things happening again.

Political balances in the new Parliament

As the dust begins to settle, what is the wider impact of the European election result on the European Parliament?

The most commented on aspect is the setback for the Socialists and the strengthening of the centre-right EPP - though the latter effect is negated by the loss of the British Conservatives, who hope to form their own, separate Group.

Yet the EPP cannot easily build a right-wing majority in the Parliament. The parties to its right are fragmented and are mostly people with whom they would not wish to be associated.

The fascist right, despite gaining the two BNP seats in Britain, lost seats in France and Belgium, gained some in Hungary and Romania, but overall cannot form a political group (a key to influence in the European Parliament), which requires at least 25 MEPs from a quarter (7) of the Member States, unless the Northern League of Italy joins them, which I hear is unlikely. Even if then, it is likely that their strongest common feature - hatred of foreigners - will make it difficult for them to work together for very long.

The eurosceptic right did not fare well in the elections. UKIP's "Independence & Democracy" Group failed to win enough seats to constitute a Group, having lost ALL its seats in Poland, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Even in Britain, despite the gift of the Westminster expenses scandal, it gained only a single seat. As to Libertas, it failed dismally, with even Declan Ganley's millions failing to win him a seat.

The Conservatives are desparately trying to build their own group - but finding it difficult to do so without taking on board some frankly embarrassing partners. Their flight to the fringes is still viewed as madness by most Conservative MEPs - see for instance Caroline Jackson's comments to the BBC yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096297.stm). It is unlikely that the EPP will see them as a partner, given that they have just walked out on their former colleagues, slamming the door.

Finally, the UEN (Union for a Europe of Nations) Group could well disappear. Its mainstays, Fianna Fail is set to join the Liberals and the former Italian AN has been absorbed into the EPP member in Italy. Their main leftover, the Polish PiS, is one of the Tories potential new partners - though their overt homophobia might yet prove too embarrassing for the latter.

All in all, those to the right of the EPP have enough numerically to constitute one or even two political Groups (given that the European Parliament has a lower threshold than most national parliaments for constituting Groups), but actually doing so requires the creation of alliances that are highly problematic - and even if they are successful, they will not be natural allies for the EPP.

Instead, the EPP will have to deal with parties of the centre and the centre-left. Even with the Liberals, they cannot obtain a majority. They will have to bargain with the Socialists and/or the Greens. The left cannot by itself get its way in this parliament, but nor can it be easily circumvented.

election result

Thanks to all those who have been calling or emailing with sympathy for my losing my seat in the European election count yesterday. Losing is one thing - ceding a seat to the BNP is another.


Local elections and European elections always see a proportion of the electorate voting on national issues. This time, there was next to no European content - just one issue in the press and on the doorstep, that of the Westminster MPs expenses scandal.

Of course we knew that all the main parties would be hurt by the scandal, and Labour perhaps more than others as it is in government. People are rightly indignant about it and the main parties must be vigourous in dealing with their rotten apples if we are to restore trust in the democratic system.

What we did not expect was the additional hit to Labour's vote caused by Hazel Blears, choosing the day before polling to have her tantrum and resign dramatically from the cabinet, ensuring blanket media coverage of a Labour split just as people were preparing to vote. At least others waited until the close of poll. Hazel's actions treated with contempt not just her colleague Labour MEPs, but also kicked in the teeth the thousands of volunteers out campaigning to get the best possible result for Labour in already difficult circumstances. Given the closeness of the result in Yorkshire, it certainly gifted the BNP one of their two seats.

Silver linings? There was no surge to the BNP, which got fewer votes than last time (it was Labour's fall that helped them get past their target of more than half Labour's score in Yorks & Humber). UKIP's vote rose by a mere 0.3 percent - they would have lost most of their seats had it not been for the Westminster MPs expenses scandal. The Tories, looking to the next general election, are far from the sort of figure they would be wanting (their 28 percent is well below the 44 percent Labour were getting in the last European elections befor the 1997 general election).

In any case, we must now fight back. It will need lots of hard work, at all levels, but it can be done.

Press is guilty for failing to address real debate on Europe

With amazing chutzpah, the Times leader today complains of “the almost complete absence of any serious debate about European issues is a colossal indictment of the European Union”. Surely it is an indictment of the UK press, including the Times, that there is so little coverage of the European issues at stake in this election!

Only yesterday Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Glenis Willmott, the leader of the Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, gave a joint press conference on the European election campaign and the European issues involved. Every question asked by journalists (bar one) was about Westminster expenses and possible cabinet reshuffles. Not a single newspaper seems to have written up the press conference at all, nor covered the issues raised. And then they have the gall to blame the EU for their failure.

Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, arch eurosceptic Dan Hannan MEP displays just as much chutzpah. Not to be outdone by UKIP claims that 75% of our legislation is adopted at European level, Dan comes up with the figure of 84%! No doubt Roger Helmer will soon pop up soon to say that it’s 100%. May I remind readers yet again that the politically neutral House of Commons library says 9%.

But his cheek is also apparent in his claim that “David Cameron plans to give the European Parliament something it hasn’t had for 50 years: an official opposition”. This has all of Dan’s usual hallmarks: a nice sounding turn of phrase that catches the eye, but on closer inspection is totally meaningless.

Unlike most parliaments, where the executive has an inbuilt majority whipped into automatically supporting the government, the European Parliament is not in hock to any executive. The Commission cannot rely on any parliamentary majority to get its proposals through – they are invariably amended, often quite substantially (unlike government bills in most national parliaments) and often rejected. Nor can the Council of Ministers rely on automatic backing from the European Parliament as most MEPs come from parties that, in their own countries, are in opposition to their national government and therefore the ministers in the Council. That is why MEPs are not just lobby fodder – they actually determine the shape of the legislation before them.

Could Dan Hannan have meant it in a different sense, namely that this would be opposition to the EU as such? However, in that sense, it is rather like the SNP claiming that it is the only opposition in the House of Commons because it is the only party that wants to see the break-up of the UK. Dan does oppose the very existence of the EU (and NATO), but that is nothing new in the European Parliament: the extreme right and extreme left have always opposed the EU. So, far from “creating an opposition” to the EU, the Conservatives are merely joining an existing opposition, that majority of whose members are fascist or communist.

Westminster scandal leaves fringe parties to spread Euromyths unanswered

As the campaign for the European elections draws to a close it is apparent that the three main parties have been embroiled in the appalling Westminster expenses scandal leaving the field open to the minor parties who see this as their great opportunity to make headway. Not only have they benefitted directly from the expenses scandal but they have also found that no major party is focused enough on the European campaign ro effectively rebut the myths and lies they continuously spread about Europe.

Thus we have heard in recent weeks, without any effective rebuttal, that:

*70 to 80 percent of our legislation comes from the European Union, when according to the House of Commons library it's only nine percent

*MEPs are on an even bigger gravy train than MPs in Westminster, when in fact they are well ahead of Westminster in cleaning up their act

*That Britain pays £41 million a day into the EU budget, when our net contribution is a third of that and this figure anyway takes no account of the wider economic benefits which dwarf any such figures.

*That EU rules are "dictated by bureaucrats", when in fact bureaucrats only propose rules and it is elected and accountable MEPs and ministers that make the decisions.

Yet few people in the media are informed enough to counter these wild claims and Labour, Liberal and pro-European Conservatives have their minds elsewhere. It is to be hoped that, despite this, the UKIP-BNP axis does not gain seats in the European elections.